[quote]DPH wrote:
evolutionary theory has never been proven wrong…in fact fossil evidence (if it is to be believed) has shown that evolution does indeed happen…
[/quote]
Just saying so doesn’t make it true.
The fact that no intermediary species (between man and apes) have NOT been found EVER in the fossil record demonstrates that the current evolutionary theory is inaccurate. And the fact that this continues to be ignored is proof that the scientific method is not being followed.
[quote]Miserere wrote:
Professor X wrote:
It is a theory and no matter how hard you try, it holds no more “scientific” merit than intelligent design.
I really must stop you here. The Theory of Evolution holds more scientific merit than Intelligent Design because it is based on scientific facts (fossils, physics, genes, etc.), and because it doesn’t add unsubstantiated mechanisms (a deity) to make it functional.[/quote]
The fact that no intermediary species (between man and apes) has been found EVER in the fossil record demonstrates that the current evolutionary theory is inaccurate. And the fact that this continues to be ignored is proof that the scientific method is not being followed.
The rest of what you wrote is utter nonsense as I have explained my position several times in this thread and others. I will respond to this, however…
[quote]pookie wrote:
If you’re too dense to understand that to most layman “the army” encompasses the whole military, well that’s your problem.
Anyway, let me hasard a new guess: You’re in the Navy. They tie a rope around your ankle and use you as a boat anchor.[/quote]
To what laymen does the army equal the entire military? Only to those horribly misinformed would that be the case. That is what made your earlier attempt to degrade “army doctors” so funny. For someone who had no working knowledge of even the most basic concept of what the military involves, you sure were quick to throw insults.
I know little kids who understand that there are different factions of the military.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Miserere wrote:
Evolution IS a fact.
Yes, but Evolution Theory DOES NOT currently explain all aspects of it correctly.
One indication that pretty much everyone agrees that it based on fact is that even the Creationists have to admit that the idea of a 6000 years old Earth is unsustainable. I see Intelligent Design as an admission on their part that the fossil record and all other evidence of the age of the Earth and the universe simply cannot be ignored. Doing so gets you laughed out of the room.
Intelligent Design is bad news for future science students; but the simple fact that hardline creationists recognise the need to disguise their creation fable in such a way is a victory for science.
[/quote]
No, I would say that everytime evolutionists ignore the fact that all they have is theory because they can’t find the missing link is a victory for creationists.
Creationists realize that, just link evolution, their ideas cannot be proven with the modern scientific method. Their ideas are based on faith.
Yet the really sad thing is that somehow having faith in the unproven ideas of darwin is seen a “scientific” and having faith in the unproven ideas of a very old histotical record (bible) is not.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The rest of what you wrote is utter nonsense as I have explained my position several times in this thread and others. I will respond to this, however…[/quote]
Yes, of course. As usual, when you get to a point when you can’t argue anymore, you just dismiss it saying “you’ve explained it previously.” Of course, you have. We just all missed it.
This one is especially good, since YOU are the one who asked where I got my impression that you were as good a scientist as I’m a ballerina. You get your answer and simply dismiss it as utter nonsense?
Just keep the fuck off the thread if you’re not able to argue your points or don’t wish to participate.
[quote]To what laymen does the army equal the entire military? Only to those horribly misinformed would that be the case. That is what made your earlier attempt to degrade “army doctors” so funny. For someone who had no working knowledge of even the most basic concept of what the military involves, you sure were quick to throw insults.
I know little kids who understand that there is are different factions of the military. [/quote]
That’s good. Dismiss the pertinent part of the post and address the joke. But make sure to characterize it as “an insult” first. Funny how when someone gets past the blunt, agressive facade of “Prof X”, they discover that X = 0.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The fact that no intermediary species (between man and apes) have NOT been found EVER in the fossil record demonstrates that the current evolutionary theory is inaccurate. And the fact that this continues to be ignored is proof that the scientific method is not being followed.
[/quote]
according to the theroy of evolution man and apes have a common ancestor…
here are a few of the intermediary species that have been found to date: ardipithecus ramidus, australopithicus anamensis, australopithicus afarensis, australopithicus garhi, homo rudolfensis, homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo heidelbergensis, homo sapiens.
there is debate amoung evolutionary scientists about these intermediary species but this list certainly shows that indeed intermediary species have been found in the fossil records…
the scientific method is being followed…
you also used a double negative in your statement…double negatives cancel each other out…but I’m sure you know that…
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The fact that no intermediary species (between man and apes) has been found EVER in the fossil record demonstrates that the current evolutionary theory is inaccurate.[/quote]
Even though you don’t say so, I will assume that by an “intermediary species (between man and apes)” you don’t mean a species that links ape and man, because such a species didn’t exist. Both apes and men evolved from a common ancestor; even though this isn’t clear in your post, I will assume it is this fossil you are refering to.
Now that is clear, let me reply. That this fossil has not been found does not mean the theory is innacurate, it simply means that this fossil has not been found. Nothing more, nothing less. Absence of proof, is not proof of absence. There are many millions of cubic kilometers of earth to dig up, and not that many people digging, so we may never find “that fossil.” Not that I think it matters. If a fossil did show up that were indeed an ancestor of both man and apes, creationists would say it was simply the fossil of an ape and had nothing human about it. Of course! It’s an ancestor of apes and man, so it’s bound to be ape-like! The early hominids were very much ape-like, it’s not like all of a sudden a species split in two, with one branch looking like gorillas, and the other like your next-door neighbour. So my point is, if you’ve already decided what you’ll believe, what does it matter if that fossil is found? Refer to my earlier post on how Creationism deals with evidence for more on this matter.
It is not being ignored! If anybody ignores the evidence it’s creationists, not the evolutionists! You have some nerve, man…
The scientific method is also roughly outlined in my previous post. You should see that the Theory of Evolution follows the scientific method very closely. Simply because Anthropology or Evolutionary Biology aren’t experimental disciplines, does not mean they don’t follow it; don’t get confused by this.
Please post any questions you may have regarding what I’ve said.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
No, I would say that everytime evolutionists ignore the fact that all they have is theory because they can’t find the missing link is a victory for creationists.
Creationists realize that, just link evolution, their ideas cannot be proven with the modern scientific method. Their ideas are based on faith.
Yet the really sad thing is that somehow having faith in the unproven ideas of darwin is seen a “scientific” and having faith in the unproven ideas of a very old histotical record (bible) is not. [/quote]
The difference is that with science, the theories can be revised. Evolution, as we understand it today, is not the same Evolution that Darwin proposed in “Origin of the Species”. Evolution will be different in 20 years; in 50; in 100. Our understanding will evolve and the theory will be improved.
If you see the Bible as being an absolute truth, then science will never measure up, since “absolute truths” are almost anathema to science. You can always question, test, prod, challenge everything it says. If you find a flaw with a theory, you don’t weaken it, you actually strenghten it. Pointing out that something does not work as it should, based on observation, empirical evidence or what have you tells us that the theory does not correctly explain whatever phenomena it’s supposed to explain. We then know that we must find a better theory or change this one to correctly account for the new test. In that way, science, as our understanding of the physical world we inhabit, progresses.
Second, even imperfect theories have their use. For example, NASA still mostly uses Newton’s Gravity equations when planning outer space voyages. While Relativity is more precise, and corrects many flaws that were discovered while testing Newton’s equations, the latter equations are simpler and good enough for small masses traveling at low speeds in weak gravity fields.
[quote]Miserere wrote:
Evolution IS a fact.
pookie wrote:
Yes, but Evolution Theory DOES NOT currently explain all aspects of it correctly.[/quote]
Let’s not get things muddled, Pookie! I was trying to make clear that one thing is evolution, which happens, which is irrefutable (even if some try to hide the fact by calling it “adaptation”), and another is the Theory of Evolution, which tries to explain how evolution brought about the abundance and diversity of life on this planet.
I’m not sure what your point was…
[quote]Miserere wrote:
Miserere wrote:
Evolution IS a fact.
pookie wrote:
Yes, but Evolution Theory DOES NOT currently explain all aspects of it correctly.
Let’s not get things muddled, Pookie! I was trying to make clear that one thing is evolution, which happens, which is irrefutable (even if some try to hide the fact by calling it “adaptation”), and another is the Theory of Evolution, which tries to explain how evolution brought about the abundance and diversity of life on this planet.
I’m not sure what your point was…[/quote]
Trying to clear up the apparently common misconception that scientific theories are given in final form.
Many who post here seem to be under the impression that science’s theories come written on stone tablets and that faulting the least detail invalidates the whole theory.
I was trying to show, (badly maybe?) that science is well aware of the shortcomings in all of its theories. Scientists are not surprised to find flaws with theories, that’s how science works.
For some reason, it seems that some people believe that if you can’t explain everything instantly and perfectly, then you’re completely wrong about everything.
I was trying to prevent your “Evolution is a fact” from being interpreted as “Evolution THEORY is a fact.” (Well, it’s a fact that ET is a theory and that it exists, but you know what I mean…)
[quote]DPH wrote:
there is debate amoung evolutionary scientists about these intermediary species but this list certainly shows that indeed intermediary species have been found in the fossil records…
[/quote]
You can’t win that argument, because everytime you’ll point out a fossil B as being intermediary between A and C, they’ll ask to see the intermediary between A and B or B and C. Produce one of those, and they ask again for the intermediary between your newly produced fossil and the end point.
Until you can show them a fossil for every living being that ever walk, swam, flew, burrowed and bounced across the earth, they’ll reject the fossil record as “incomplete.”
If you laid out a full skeletal fossil record showing all of the divergent strands of hominids that have lead up to the current species extant, the creationist would still dismiss it. You see, their God is a prankster and he created those fossils to ‘test their faith.’ You can’t argue with someone who has abandoned logic and reason for faith, it’s even harder to talk to folks like the ones here who have rationalized their faith by convincing themselves it’s been arrived at through reason.
Hell many of these people are still arguing against Darwinism when the current theory of evolution bears about as much resemblance to Darwin’s initial theories as prop planes bear to the space shuttle.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Yes, of course. As usual, when you get to a point when you can’t argue anymore, you just dismiss it saying “you’ve explained it previously.” Of course, you have. We just all missed it.
This one is especially good, since YOU are the one who asked where I got my impression that you were as good a scientist as I’m a ballerina. You get your answer and simply dismiss it as utter nonsense?
Just keep the fuck off the thread if you’re not able to argue your points or don’t wish to participate.[/quote]
I argued my points. I doubt anyone else here is lost on where I stand. However, just to show you, let’s look at your “argument”.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
How would you know? If I am no scientist then you surely aren’t.
They publish papers. I read them.[/quote]
Ooh, that’s great. Reading reports now makes you a “scientist”. Wikipedia describes a scientist as someone who uses the scientific method in research. When have you met that qualification outside of school projects?
[quote]
I’m sorry, but where did I give the impression that I was afraid to look for answers?
From the discussion we had in the “They’re Made of Meat” thread. In that thread, you explained your view that “destroying the earth” was already preordained and showed no real interest in the rest of the universe around it.
Struck me as an unscientific and somehow primitive view for a scientist.
You also showed no curiosity as to whether they’re could be life elsewhere. This same point was repeated again in another post of yours when you said that life had occured only once in the universe. I doubt you’ve checked it all to make sure.[/quote]
Let’s look at your first point. Belief that our life on this planet will eventually end (or to be more accurate, transformed) now means you have no interest in the rest of the universe? You are the one making assumptions. Why not ask if this is the way I view the universe? Why is it you can’t understand that someone can fully believe in God and STILL explore the universe, nature and everything found in it? Why do you think belief in God equals a closed mind?
Your second point here is that I claimed we are the only life in the entire universe? Bullshit. I claimed that life on this planet can not be duplicated from non-life or that it has never been observed to happen within recorded human history. Never once did I write that we are the only life in the entire universe. What I did do was imply that life, if it “just happened” like you seem to believe, chose one of the weakest forms to do so in given the vastness of space and exclusivity of the natural resources on this planet. How selective for “non-thinking”, “non-motivated”, and “non-planned” life in a chaotic system with no order.
My honest belief is that there may very well be other life out there that was also created by the same force with a very similar purpose in mind. Again, you assumed otherwise…instead of simply asking for clarity. Why would you do that?
[quote]
My point about abiogenesis being a possibility worth investigating also went unanswered. Apparently, you’ve already made up your mind as to what we’ll discover when we do test those hypotheses.[/quote]
Unanswered? I personally give it no merit but you can try to your heart’s content and I would read any scientific paper on it. Let’s use electricity again. Maybe Mary Shelly was actually onto something. Being a scietist does not mean that you try to prove everything that can be dreamed up. Maybe if I throw a cat in the air 5,000 times it will gain the abilty to simply stick in mid air. Why not test it? It could happen, you know. Obviously if you don’t believe it can happen, this means you are not capable of using the scietific method. That is your very own logic. Have fun with that.
[quote]
I can go on if you’re still wondering where the impression comes from…[/quote]
Oh, please do, because this was pretty damn weak.
Just a small distration on this time-wasting debate…
Depending on the nation, the term army can refer solely to the land based armed forces or the the ensemble of the armed forces.
From my understanding and from a canadian perspective, this is how the term is understood and used in Canada. Being in the army for many canadians probably does not imply any notion of being land-based or not. Same thing in French.
Another canadian-american misunderstanding.
AlexH
[quote]Remz wrote:
Another canadian-american misunderstanding.
AlexH[/quote]
It sure is. But hey, thanks for playing.
Not sure if this has been mentioned, so I apologize if it has.
We can argue evolution vs creationsism all day if we want. Let me ask this simple question that can be applied at every level of the evolution theory. Where did they come from?
Apes: Where did they come from?
Single-cell organisms: Where did they come from?
Pressures, gases, and vacuums in the universe: Where did they come from?
It seems like the whole theory of evolution is dependent on the fact that we had to start with something. What did we start with? Does it make more sense that there was just this “stuff” that appeared out of nowhere and evolved, or that an eternal diety (God) created it all? If people can accept that some things just always were in exsistence, why can’t they believe that God is real and was always in exsistence? (My thought is that people don’t have to be accountable to “stuff”, but if they were to believe in God, they would have to be accountable to Him. Although, believe it or not, EVERYONE will give an account in the end.)
Granted, it takes faith to believe that God has just always been. My faith has been strengthened by current events that coincide with biblical teachings. I would hope that all those who don’ believe the bible to be true are all people who have read it from front to back and studied in context what the original intent of the original languages were. Also, cross reference events in the bible with other “secular” writings from the same period. If this has not been done, then one has no room to dismiss it as untrue. I am am not done doing that myself, but there has been nothing that would suggest to me that any of it is untrue.
That being said, I ask the question: Where did they come from?
[quote]Miserere wrote:
[b]STOP SAYING IT’S JUST A THEORY AND BRING SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE TO THE DISCUSSION[b].[/quote]
Ok fine I’ll drop the word “just” a theory and replace it with “it’s a working theory”
You seem very hostile to the fact that anyone points out any missing links in this debate. Your long explanations are great, they really are. But in the end it’s a working theory and that’s that. If don’t want to acknowledge this perhaps you will be one of the scientist that will let a self fullfilling prophey clould your judgements, as far as i can see you already see only what you want to see. Answer a simple question
IS it a theory or has it been proven, yes or no?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why is it you can’t understand that someone can fully believe in God and STILL explore the universe, nature and everything found in it? Why do you think belief in God equals a closed mind?
[/quote]
Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but in my personal experience most Christians do seem to be closed minded. Many of the ones I have encountered have no interest in finding answers other than the ones given to them by Bible or clergy. Many of them are truly ignorant sheep and are quite pleased to stay that way.
I hardly consider you a typical Christian, as your beliefs are (in general) relatively reasonable.
[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Why is it you can’t understand that someone can fully believe in God and STILL explore the universe, nature and everything found in it? Why do you think belief in God equals a closed mind?
Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but in my personal experience most Christians do seem to be closed minded. Many of the ones I have encountered have no interest in finding answers other than the ones given to them by Bible or clergy. Many of them are truly ignorant sheep and are quite pleased to stay that way.
I hardly consider you a typical Christian, as your beliefs are (in general) relatively reasonable.
[/quote]
What bothers me is that anyone would base their entire concept of Christianity on a few idiots. That is like basing your concept of training on what you hear at GNC. Just like any other facet of life, if you don’t do your own research and search out people who are more than puppets, you will never gain any deeper understanding. For what does this not hold true for?
For the record, the more I learn about the complexity of the human body, the more I believe in devine intervention.
Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee
Differences From Human DNA Pinpointed
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 1, 2005; Page A03
“The fresh unraveling of chimpanzee DNA allows an unprecedented gene-to-gene comparison with the human genome, mapped in 2001, and makes plain the evolutionary processes through which chimps and humans arose from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.”
“On a practical level, researchers said, the work is likely to explain why chimps are resistant to several human diseases such as AIDS, hepatitis, malaria and Alzheimer’s disease – information that could lead to new ways to prevent or treat many human ills.”
For the entire article:
I believe that evolution is a fact as much as I believe the sun is going to come up tomorrow. Science has proved evolution occurs beyond any doubt in my mind.
However, I don’t see any conflict with the thought that a god started it all. For those who want to believe that God had a hand in creating life on earth, fine! I may be with you on that. But to say that ID has as much scientific merit as evolution is ridiculous. The theory of evolution has tremendous amounts of evidence to back it up. ID has absolutely no evidence at all. None. Zero. Nada.
I’m also not one of those who’s upset about peoples belief in creationism or ID, which are really the same thing. I think it’s great that people have faith. It’s been shown in scientific studies that people who have faith in a religion are generally happier and healthier than those who don’t have faith.
I’m not upset about anyone elses belief because I don’t have an ounce of personal feeling invested in my opinion that evolution is a fact. Evolution is simply far and away the best available explanation as to how life has developed on this earth. If another theory scientifically proves itself to be a better choice in the future, I’ll change my mind with no hesitation or regret.