Ramius Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 You seem to have no problem with Hindu's. You're "enlightenment" is transparent. It has nothing to do with religion. It's all about taking a phony high ground and mocking Western civilization to give yourself a "above it all" image. You need this. https://lolmart.cheezburger.com/estore/buy.asp?job_num=56247&product_num=265&estore=lolmart&category=Shirt+of+the+Week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Ah! Here is where/how the "faithful" typically turn into the aforementioned pigeons. Yes, we have discovered numerous missing links that make a pretty good record of evolution. The problem is, whenever science finds a missing link, religion jumps in and says "But what about the link between the first two?!". And then science finds a link, and then religion says "But what about a link between THOSE TWO?" It's like splitting an inch into a half-inch, and then a quarter-inch, and then an eighth, and sixteenth. How precise do you need to drill down before it makes sense? No matter how many links are provided, creationsists jump in and demand another link. But they are never going to find a fossil of a creature that is in the middle of morphing between 2 species. So creationists can then strut around victorious. Nawmean? . See, the problem I have is that it only takes about ten minutes on Google to find some pretty impressively credentialed folks from major universities who seem to disagree about certain aspects of evolution. So that's what I'm interested in figuring out...which components of the theory are considered scientific fact and which are still debated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 . See, the problem I have is that it only takes about ten minutes on Google to find some pretty impressively credentialed folks from major universities who seem to disagree about certain aspects of evolution. So that's what I'm interested in figuring out...which components of the theory are considered scientific fact and which are still debated. If you are looking for "scientific fact" you will not find it with something that is labeled a Scientific Theory. But lets discuss what that means for a second... Everything becomes clear if you assign their proper meanings to words like "theory", "law" etc. in a scientific context. In particular "theory" is not an insult (as in the silly saying "it's just a theory"). A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment. This is precisely was makes a theory scientific. A statement that cannot be disproved by experiment may still be highly respectable but it's simply not part of any experimental science. Science is just a succession of better and better approximations. This is what makes it nice and exciting. If you were to insist at all times on "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in a scientific context, you'd never be able to make any meaningful statement (unless accompanied by the relevant "margin for error"). As a consistent body of knowledge, each theory allows you to make such statements freely, knowing simply that the validity of your discourse is only restricted by the general conditions of applicability of a particular theory. Without such a framework, scientific discourse would be crippled into utter uselessness... So dont get down on something because you see it labeled as a "Theory". It doesnt necessarily mean it's a made up fantasy. And those impressively credentialed folks who disagree about certain aspects are simply doing their jobs as scientists. Always question everything. Keep asking why. Which is the exact opposite of how religion wants you to act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 If people want to believe that fine with me. They're not hurting me so what do I care. Only so long as you're not doing what they don't believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I give up lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 The reply to that should be "Gravity is just a theory too. Why dont you believe real hard that you can fly, and try jumping out of that 10th floor window?" And dinosaur fossils are just to test our faith. Much like killing your own children. Silly Abraham. At least you don't hear very much anymore from the folks who claimed the Jews buried fake 'dinosaur' fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I give up lol. Yeah sure seems the people on here who hate religion can do a good job of copying the intolerant religious folk they claim to be above. More to the point-Also read your inner fish by Neil Shubin. He discovered the "missing link" between fish and amphibians, Tiktaalik, from the early Devonian that is just such a transitional species as you ask. There are others such as archaeopteryx[transitional between birds and dinosaurs]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I give up lol. Yeah sure seems the people on here who hate religion can do a good job of copying the intolerant religious folk they claim to be above. More to the point-Also read your inner fish by Neil Shubin. He discovered the "missing link" between fish and amphibians, Tiktaalik, from the early Devonian that is just such a transitional species as you ask. There are others such as archaeopteryx[transitional between birds and dinosaurs]. WTF?!? If AJ gave up because I was being "hateful and intolerant", then I'd like to hear it. AJ and I are good enough e-friends that he can tell me that. Otherwise, go kick rocks with that crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) . See, the problem I have is that it only takes about ten minutes on Google to find some pretty impressively credentialed folks from major universities who seem to disagree about certain aspects of evolution. So that's what I'm interested in figuring out...which components of the theory are considered scientific fact and which are still debated. Links? (I'm trying to keep this talk above the riff-raff and actually have a reasonable discussion about it) Edited June 4, 2012 by Ramius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 At least you don't hear very much anymore from the folks who claimed the Jews buried fake 'dinosaur' fossils. hahaha! Never heard that one before! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 WTF?!? If AJ gave up because I was being "hateful and intolerant", then I'd like to hear it. AJ and I are good enough e-friends that he can tell me that. Otherwise, go kick rocks with that crap. Oh good. More razor sharp debating point's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 1338835734[/url]' post='2480294']. See, the problem I have is that it only takes about ten minutes on Google to find some pretty impressively credentialed folks from major universities who seem to disagree about certain aspects of evolution. So that's what I'm interested in figuring out...which components of the theory are considered scientific fact and which are still debated. I think you'll find most all evolutionary biologists and archaeologists disagree about many of the aspects of evolution. But, what they're disagreeing about or discussing are which evolutionary processes are more important for driving speciation, rates of evolution, even which species preceded other or are linked, etc. So, yes, there's lots of disagreement and new information being discovered all the time. However, the one thing I think they all agree on is that the past and future speciation of all life on the planet has occured through a number of evolutionary processes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 WTF?!? If AJ gave up because I was being "hateful and intolerant", then I'd like to hear it. AJ and I are good enough e-friends that he can tell me that. Otherwise, go kick rocks with that crap. i think sometimes those that frequent the PPP section forget what reality of the board over here is like... a much different place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 The reply to that should be "Gravity is just a theory too. Why dont you believe real hard that you can fly, and try jumping out of that 10th floor window?" And dinosaur fossils are just to test our faith. Much like killing your own children. Silly Abraham. Actually, there's serious problems with the law of gravity. Like: it can't be quantized, or reconciled with other theories. Thus explains the fundamental definition of a theory: a theory is only a model to explain the observed world. Period. End of story. The difference between a good and a bad theory is the quality of the explanation: a good theory explains past observation, and predicts future observation, well. A bad theory, less well. In addition, it predicts what you WON'T observe (i.e. is falsifiable - you can devise a test that would disprove it, and have that test fail.) That is what makes creation a truly crappy theory: it explains nothing, makes no prediction (or allows anything, depending on your point of view), and is absolutely not falsifiable (how can it be, when everything can be explained by "God's Will?") Which doesn't mean creation is wrong, either...just that it's not scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Yeah sure seems the people on here who hate religion can do a good job of copying the intolerant religious folk they claim to be above. More to the point-Also read your inner fish by Neil Shubin. He discovered the "missing link" between fish and amphibians, Tiktaalik, from the early Devonian that is just such a transitional species as you ask. There are others such as archaeopteryx[transitional between birds and dinosaurs]. I don't know about that. You seem to take the cake when it comes to hating on religion. After all, you're the one who comes on here and claims that not having a problem with Hindus somehow makes one phony. You don't get much more ridiculous/hateful than that. But keep on spewing nonsense. It's entertaining for the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I don't know about that. You seem to take the cake when it comes to hating on religion. After all, you're the one who comes on here and claims that not having a problem with Hindus somehow makes one phony. You don't get much more ridiculous/hateful than that. But keep on spewing nonsense. It's entertaining for the rest of us. Kiss and make up, you two. No fighting outside of PPP. Go there and beat the **** out of each other like you !@#$ing morons are supposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Kiss and make up, you two. No fighting outside of PPP. Go there and beat the **** out of each other like you !@#$ing morons are supposed to. Kiss? Now, now, remember what the Bible says about kissing other men... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wooderson Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Is it safe to say that I believe that there's something after death, but I'm not sure what it is. Now, who wants a -- Edited June 4, 2012 by Wooderson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Kiss? Now, now, remember what the Bible says about kissing other men... Psalms 16:9 "Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I don't know about that. You seem to take the cake when it comes to hating on religion. After all, you're the one who comes on here and claims that not having a problem with Hindus somehow makes one phony. You don't get much more ridiculous/hateful than that. But keep on spewing nonsense. It's entertaining for the rest of us. Yeah someone mention's Hindu religion and you come in with you're wrist band remark of "but their brown!" You sure can make a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts