Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on April 04, 2004, 11:33:13 PM
-
Fossil Find Is From Early Push-Up Creature (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040401/ap_on_sc/push_up_champ_3)
-
I dont understand your point.
If anything it destroys your idea that Evolution is a Myth.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
If anything it destroys your idea that Evolution is a Myth.
Sarcasm is not your friend.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Sarcasm is not your friend.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Apparently So:eek:
-
Jeez Sandman...didn't you know that little creature was one of the beasties in the Garden of Eden back just 6000 years ago?! Everybody knows that carbon dating is grossly inaccurate. And besides evolution must be wrong since no one has actually ever seen a species evolve into another species. heheheh ;)
-
The people who wrote the bible werent always being literal, which also means that peoole who interpret its writings literaly are incorrect... So dont criticize the bible, criticize the people who perhaps interpret it incorrectly.
I once criticized the bible as idiocy written by 2000 year old ignorant goatherders, all out of my own ignorance, but it is a far more sophisticated and well written document that I ever imagined now that I have taken some time to study it...
Now be careful in your initial knee-jerk reaction to what I just said...
-
I believe in a god of some sort. And I believe in evolution.
Not sure why it's made out to be an either/or.
-
evolution makes sense to show how differetn branches of species end up suited for their environment.
it only becomes stupid when you try to project it back to explain the existance of all life. to believe that we got to where we are now by a random series of lucky brakes, starting with one little cell off goo, requires way more faith than creationalism.
-
More faith then Creationism? I don't think you've thought that through. Creationism is 100% faith, no need for anything like evidence.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Now be careful in your initial knee-jerk reaction to what I just said...
OUCH! Damn... just broke my toe...
-
April 1st
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
More faith then Creationism? I don't think you've thought that through. Creationism is 100% faith, no need for anything like evidence.
While I'm not a creationist in the traditional sense, there is plenty of evidence to support the belief in a "created" universe. In fact, I hold the universe itself to be that evidence.
-
Are you familiar with circular logic? "The universe exists, therefor it was created, and that's why it exists. Of course!"
For centuries, it was KNOWN that mice were spontaneously created in piles of hay. What makes the assertion of divine creation any better?
-
Another cool transitional fossil.... you know, like the ones Creationists say don't exist.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Are you familiar with circular logic? "The universe exists, therefor it was created, and that's why it exists. Of course!"
For centuries, it was KNOWN that mice were spontaneously created in piles of hay. What makes the assertion of divine creation any better?
Yes, I am familiar with the concept of circular logic. I didn't say that the physical universe was proof of creation, only that it was evidence. You understand the difference, right?
-
LOL there are alot of stinky baits in this tread.
-
Hehehe... I think anthropology is great. If you screw up, there's very few people around that can figure it out. Most of the time they come up with the most extreme oppinions on things because controversy/sensationalism = more grants.
But carry on believing that someone trying to justify their income with brilliant discoveries is the most trustworthy person on earth and there is no bias nor pre-conceived oppinions influencing the "findings". It makes you look oh so more intelligent.
MiniD
-
I was hoping to keep this a secret, but in the interest of ending any ill will on this BBS, let it be known that it was me who created the universe.
-
Here's what I don't get.
Why would a strict creationist (the earth created in 7 days, etc.) limit the creativity and genius afforded their god?
Couldn't an "all knowing, all seeing" being be clever in its design of the universe??
-
You are right of course MiniD, except for one further point.
Anyone who feels the need or the inclination has the option to disprove a scientific finding. It is not only expected, it is encouraged. Ever heard of a religion that encourages debunking of itself?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Ever heard of a religion that encourages debunking of itself?
You just named it...Science
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You are right of course MiniD, except for one further point.
Anyone who feels the need or the inclination has the option to disprove a scientific finding. It is not only expected, it is encouraged. Ever heard of a religion that encourages debunking of itself?
Actually... there isn't a difference. The same can be said for both. The basic assumption is the same...
Q: Debunk what?
A: Something taken on faith.
The post linked offered no proof of anything. A bone that may or may not support a theory is all. How someone chooses to see that is another story all together. Basically, you're asking to debunk something that really hasn't been proven... and can't be proven. Yet... it has been labeled "proof".
MiniD
-
1. Proof when used in the context of science basically means "best explaination fitting the observed facts"
2. The posted link offered no proof, but the actual study is open to scrutiny. Did you expect a treatise on bone structure and morphology?
3. Scientific "proof" can be based on models when actual observation is impossible. For Exdample: A shoulder that can create the "pushup" motion probably looks like other shoulders that can do the same thing.
You accept "models" as proof every day. What is 1 million plus 1 million? Do I need to get 2 million pebbles together to prove the answer to you?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The post linked offered no proof of anything. A bone that may or may not support a theory is all. How someone chooses to see that is another story all together. Basically, you're asking to debunk something that really hasn't been proven... and can't be proven. Yet... it has been labeled "proof".
The scientists quoted in the article did not refer to the fossil as "proof" of anything; that was Sandman's spin on it.
Scientific theories should follow very rigid standards allowing falsifiability. Thus while scientists may never completely "prove" the validity of a theory, they can certainly disprove it. The fact that this fossil matches predictions about the chronology of evolution made prior to the discovery bolsters the theory. On the other hand, had they discovered a fossil that completely blew away their predictions, it likely would have proven the theory incorrect and forced scientists to reevaluate and modify it.
Thus you can scientifically debunk evolution, and in fact I'm sure paleontologists boringly argue back and forth in journals trying to falsify opposing theories about evolutionary minutia. I know political scientists do this all the time in the social sciences.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I'm replying to this thread guys. I'm replying to what people chose to view as proof or not as proof... and the vagueness of people definition of "faith". Though... I'm glad to see you two both admit that this is not proof of anything.
1. Proof when used in the context of science basically means "best explaination fitting the observed facts"
Actually, you are wrong here. It is "an explanation" that loosely translates to a "very vague assumption". Especially in situations like this.
Findings are driven by pre-conceived notions. Science is as notorious for this as any religion. I even see it here at work due to the heavy scientific nature of things... You can make an assumption (or... "explanation" as you say) and if it makes some level of sense, people will take it as a baseline. You don't even need data to back it up. Once it is accepted as a baseline, you will need tons of data to displace what equates to "an assumption". Scientists are some of the most close minded people I've ever met.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'm replying to this thread guys. I'm replying to what people chose to view as proof or not as proof... and the vagueness of people definition of "faith". Though... I'm glad to see you two both admit that this is not proof of anything.
[/B]
It is a finding that fits a prediction based upon a scientific theory. Thus the theory may parsimoniously explain the greatest amount of variance observed in evolutionary phenomenon. I think we also need to realize that scientists who study evolution aren't trying to debunk religion; they're trying to debunk one another if anything. If paleontology is anything like political science -- and I'm sure in a general sense that it is -- then conflicting theories abound with arguments over which evidence to use and how to use it. This is quite common, and it's all part of academia and scientific progress. I don't see it as good or bad per se.
Findings are driven by pre-conceived notions. Science is as notorious for this as any religion.
Bad science maybe. Among those with whom I've worked and published before, you'd better damn well justify any theoretical elements with data. There's no way you're going to publish in a top journal on assumptions that you can't operationalize and measure. In the very least you're going to have to justify any theory with extensive citations pointing to bodies of work and research that form the building blocks of your theory and its assumptions.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Evolution is a tool used by the creator to shape the art of the universe. Nature is in fact, the greatest creation.
-
Hold on DMF. Didn't you say this is a tidbit that supports a prediction based on scientific theory? Really... just think about the magnitude of what you said in that little sentance.
Virtually all of science is theory. There are so many assumptions its simply impossible to weigh. It's only when you find something that is counter to those general assumptions that you need to have "alot of proof". There was/is no proof that rotator cuff evolution involved that stage of evolution. Someone took a drawing of a bone that didn't allow for lateral motion and then one that did... morphing from one to the other. This looks like a picture in that morph. Science says one type of shoulder would support it, and another type won't... thus there MUST be something in-between if science also says that evolution MUST have occured.
Very few people, that I know of, will dispute the occurance of evolution to some degree. Even christians will have a hard time explaining how Noah fit 250,000 species of birds on the arc (x2 of course). The area where science is desperately trying to make things fit is in the cross-over regimes. There simply isn't anything out there that substantiates the migration from water to land nor from land to flight nor from reptile to mamal. This is the fundamental flaw of evolution and glaringly highlights just exactly what "scientific theory" is based on. Agree or disagree with it... just don't pretend it's not a religion.
MiniD
-
I really never understood the whole fuss about evolution vs god. To me at least it's quite simple to have both if you want to. Evolution is a fact, fossil evidence supports it it, microevolution studies support it, bacteria prove it every time a new generation becomes resistant to an antibiotic (a textboox perfect example of evoltion BTW) etc etc etc.. Yet there is always time and place for god at the very begining if you want to put him there, at the moment of creation of the universe, because quite frankly we havent got a clue what was before the beggining if time - it sure as hell didnt all come from "nothing" - even science will agree to that...
-
Quite. Grun.
The point is, we don't know.
For me, the question about belief in God has always been, not so much how many questions does its existence/non-existence answer, but whether our belief in its presence actually make the world a better place to live in.
On balance, apart from some great examples of humanity shown by religious people, it's been pretty much a negative in my book.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
Quite. Grun.
The point is, we don't know.
For me, the question about belief in God has always been, not so much how many questions does its existence/non-existence answer, but whether our belief in its presence actually make the world a better place to live in.
On balance, apart from some great examples of humanity shown by religious people, it's been pretty much a negative in my book.
Ravs
I imagine you are thinkiging of all the religious violence, correct?
But consider this, how many people have died due to ideological violence? Should the would then be a better place if we had no ideas? Of course not.
So then the problem isnt religion or ideas, its extremist actions based on those concenpts - thats waht we have to be aware of
and thats what we have confont and defeat.
-
Yes. But whether it's religious or ideological makes no difference to people who have died and the people who have to live with those deaths.
Religion is just another ideology, if you like.
Couldn't agree with you more about the extremist issue. Johnathan Swift had it taped in 'Gulliver's Travels' with the big endians and little endians.
ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
Yes. But whether it's religious or ideological makes no difference to people who have died and the people who have to live with those deaths.
Religion is just another ideology, if you like.
Couldn't agree with you more about the extremist issue. Johnathan Swift had it taped in 'Gulliver's Travels' with the big endians and little endians.
ravs
If you dont mind me asking, would you ever sacrifice your life to save the life of your wife or girlfiend?
-
I wouldn't know until I was in the situation, but I'd like to think I would.
why?
-
Originally posted by ravells
I wouldn't know until I was in the situation, but I'd like to think I would.
why?
Because love is only another idea.
-
Well, you were asking about self sacrifice and not killing another person.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
Well, you were asking about self sacrifice and not killing another person.
Ravs
Perhaps,
Yet I could simply restate the question and ask would you kill a person trying to kill your wife or girlfriend and I think you you would answer similary.
Would you?
-
Again...depends upon the situation and again, probably.
There is a big difference between self defence and defending the people you love and killing for some political or religious conviction, in that in the former, you are dealing with flesh and blood and in the latter you are dealing with something that resides in your head.
Ravs
-
But the idea of love is important, its the reason you the individual would more likely place yourself at risk legaly and physically to save that person.
Whats more likely, that you kill person trying to kill your wife or that you kill person trying to kill random guy on street as youy walk by?
You are doing it based on the idea of love and love resides in the head.
It does doesnt it, ravells?
We can all lust after a beutiful woman, thats physical. Yet love is more than that, its an idea, its in the head and in the heart.
And thats why you would kill or die or to protect her, not because of physical lust, thats easy enough to replace by finding another woman, but because of love - an idea.
And much the same works with religion and ideas, you do things to protect the outcomes of ideas you hold dear - even kill or be killed for them..
You wouldnt want a world without the idea of love, no?
-
There simply isn't anything out there that substantiates the migration from water to land nor from land to flight nor from reptile to mamal.
Silly Mini.
Water to Land - Absurdly obvious. We still have existant transitional species that perform the miracle of "amphibiousness" while still remaining "fishy". One example off the top of my head is the Mudskipper of the Southern US. Natural slection would favor an animal that could move further from pond to pond during dry seasons or climactic changes. No need to make up anything. It is right in front of us.
Land to Flight - Tired of typing now... go HERE (http://www.transitionrig.com/evolutio.htm) Explanations and references.
-
You're missing my point.
I'm saying that when you're dealing with ideologies you are dealing with a concept of a 'perfect world' whether it's Christ, Allah, Captialist or Communist...it's just a mental construct.
When you are dealing with someone who means harm to a loved one of yours you are dealing with immediate reality.
Yes, our idea of love and our idea of religion are 'ideas' as you say, but they occupy different rungs on the ladder of abstraction.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
evolution makes sense to show how differetn branches of species end up suited for their environment.
it only becomes stupid when you try to project it back to explain the existance of all life. to believe that we got to where we are now by a random series of lucky brakes, starting with one little cell off goo, requires way more faith than creationalism.
What if you have unlimited chances for that goo to become something?
-
GRUNHERZ, I must go to bed, or I shall be killed by the very woman you've been trying to get me to save.
Take care, nice talking to you as always.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
When you are dealing with someone who means harm to a loved one of yours you are dealing with immediate reality.
Ravs
And when somebody threatens to kill you unless you give up your religion then thats immiediate reality too.
You see the idea of love is what links you to that person, its what makes it immediate reality to you. The same with religion.
It's all based on an idea...
-
Originally posted by ravells
GRUNHERZ, I must go to bed, or I shall be killed by the very woman you've been trying to get me to save.
Take care, nice talking to you as always.
Ravs
It's because she loves you. :) Has been a good talk!
-
I want to see the creationists try and explain the excessive hair on my butt.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I want to see the creationists try and explain the excessive hair on my butt.
Proof of Satan?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I want to see the creationists try and explain the excessive hair on my butt.
You said "butt." Reprimand and $150 fine, per the rules!!!
Check the rules here:
http://www.liberty.edu/StudentAffairs/index.cfm?PID=1378
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Proof of Satan?
No that would be my farts.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Silly Mini.
Water to Land - Absurdly obvious. We still have existant transitional species that perform the miracle of "amphibiousness" while still remaining "fishy". One example off the top of my head is the Mudskipper of the Southern US. Natural slection would favor an animal that could move further from pond to pond during dry seasons or climactic changes. No need to make up anything. It is right in front of us.
Land to Flight - Tired of typing now... go HERE (http://www.transitionrig.com/evolutio.htm) Explanations and references.
LOL! read that link yourself MT. The words "probable", "likely" and "could have" are quite predominate.
And you're right... Natural selection would favor an animal that could move farther from pond to pond... it's a wonder more haven't survived as compared to the animals that can't move from the water nor from the land.
But fear not... those aren't really holes in the whole theory of evolution... nor even "survival of the fittest". It's just holes waiting to be filled, forcefully or not... by the wonders of science.
MiniD
-
I see no one is still absolutely certain about anything regarding evolution or creation... so, everything stated here from either side means nothing. Kind of like wamalama ding dong or give peace a chance.
-SW
-
The only difference being one can produce somewhat tangible evidence as the main thesis and the other advocates the gates of hell.
-
Evolution is the tangible evidence of a god. How about THEM apples? :)
who the hell really knows....
-
Originally posted by Mini D
LOL! read that link yourself MT. The words "probable", "likely" and "could have" are quite predominate.
And you're right... Natural selection would favor an animal that could move farther from pond to pond... it's a wonder more haven't survived as compared to the animals that can't move from the water nor from the land.
But fear not... those aren't really holes in the whole theory of evolution... nor even "survival of the fittest". It's just holes waiting to be filled, forcefully or not... by the wonders of science.
MiniD
You know, for someone who really doesn't know biological science you sure do talk good.
-
Proof that evolution has failed:
http://www.liberty.edu/StudentAffairs/index.cfm?PID=1378
-
Nahh... The ultimate proof that evolution has failed comes once a year, every year, when people post AH con pics.
-
Existence of god is only relevant to me if he will interrupt this process that has been seemingly uninterrupted by external entities for billions of years. I am not holding my breath like millions of people around the world are. Its like getting exited when the lottery numbers are about to be announced.
Forces that worked around big bang are most likely beyond our capacity of understanding.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
There simply isn't anything out there that substantiates the migration from water to land nor from land to flight nor from reptile to mamal. This is the fundamental flaw of evolution and glaringly highlights just exactly what "scientific theory" is based on. Agree or disagree with it... just don't pretend it's not a religion.
There are lots of things that tell about how the transition happened.When talking about transitional species you should first try to define what is exactly a transitional species.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#tran
"The fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land"