I want you all to see this:
Strengths and Weaknesses
Texas removed the strengths and weaknesses language from its textbooks, but that language could reappear at any time. I take serious issue with this because it is misleading to the general public and in my opinion it is just absurd. I am unaware of any weaknesses in the ToE. That language implies that some non-supported assumptions have been made in order to make the theory workable, and to my knowledge that is just not the case. Will someone please explain to me where the term 'weaknesses' belongs in reference to the ToE?
Some people seem to think it's a weakness if you don't have answers to every question. Even if you don't have evidence to support an answer. For some any answer is better than no answer.
Gary Gaulin for example.
Gary Gaulin for example.
QUOTE (buttershug+Feb 22 2009, 06:29 PM)
Some people seem to think it's a weakness if you don't have answers to every question. Even if you don't have evidence to support an answer. For some any answer is better than no answer.
Gary Gaulin for example.
That way of thinking is maddeningly irrational. In many cases the random formulation of completely unfounded conclusions actually damages the search for and discovery of logical conclusions. I think that's what we are dealing with in this case.
How does it make sense to assume something based on a lack of evidence for something else? I just don't understand. On the 'weaknesses' issue, what you said is pretty much what I was thinking. That sort of wording is irresponsible, weaknesses does not belong where they continue to want to place it.
Gary Gaulin for example.
That way of thinking is maddeningly irrational. In many cases the random formulation of completely unfounded conclusions actually damages the search for and discovery of logical conclusions. I think that's what we are dealing with in this case.
How does it make sense to assume something based on a lack of evidence for something else? I just don't understand. On the 'weaknesses' issue, what you said is pretty much what I was thinking. That sort of wording is irresponsible, weaknesses does not belong where they continue to want to place it.
That website is funny. It is amazing how many times a discredited argument can be rehashed.
Nobody knows except but a few, how many actresses have had their melons fashioned anew..?
QUOTE (philip347+Feb 23 2009, 04:26 PM)
Nobody knows except but a few, how many actresses have had their melons fashioned anew..?
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
I think you guys will get a kick out of this t-shirt site that I found. I think I'm going to order 2 or 3 of these myself =).
Teach the Controversy
Teach the Controversy
QUOTE (DuzmA+Feb 23 2009, 05:11 PM)
I think you guys will get a kick out of this t-shirt site that I found. I think I'm going to order 2 or 3 of these myself =).
Teach the Controversy
Absolutely fabulous
Teach the Controversy
Absolutely fabulous
Have a look around the forum. Don't you mean Texas BoE or what does ToE stand for?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Feb 23 2009, 07:46 PM)
Have a look around the forum. Don't you mean Texas BoE or what does ToE stand for?
BoE: Board of Education
ToE: Theory of Evolution
BoE: Board of Education
ToE: Theory of Evolution
I'm SO going to borrow those t-shirt pictures! 
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 23 2009, 10:28 PM)
Probably in the sense that is is taught as an alternate creation story, and it evokes images of some primordial alter reality, that is not just weak, but made up in it's entirety. They are probably constrained as to what they can say, otherwise, it would likely simply be called a crock. That is, where evolving is imagined to have begun in some godless happenstance make believe past, that cannot be supported.
Too bad they couldn't just make it illegal to even mention it near a school! Kind of like the abortion bubble zones. The worls would be a better place, I would think.
Still around eh? I'll address your post in as concise a way as I can manage.
The ToE is NOT taught as an alternate creation story. It does not deal with creation. As for it being 'a crock' I would like you to point out exactly where you take issue with the science behind the theory. I'm not going to play the game of random generalizations with you anymore. If you have a problem with modern evolutionary theory in some respect I will be more than happy to help you understand it in any way that I can, and I imagine that there are many people here who would be delighted to help you in the same way, all you have to do is ask.
Too bad they couldn't just make it illegal to even mention it near a school! Kind of like the abortion bubble zones. The worls would be a better place, I would think.
Still around eh? I'll address your post in as concise a way as I can manage.
The ToE is NOT taught as an alternate creation story. It does not deal with creation. As for it being 'a crock' I would like you to point out exactly where you take issue with the science behind the theory. I'm not going to play the game of random generalizations with you anymore. If you have a problem with modern evolutionary theory in some respect I will be more than happy to help you understand it in any way that I can, and I imagine that there are many people here who would be delighted to help you in the same way, all you have to do is ask.
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 23 2009, 10:28 PM)
Probably in the sense that is is taught as an alternate creation story, and it evokes images of some primordial alter reality, that is not just weak, but made up in it's entirety. They are probably constrained as to what they can say, otherwise, it would likely simply be called a crock. That is, where evolving is imagined to have begun in some godless happenstance make believe past, that cannot be supported.
Too bad they couldn't just make it illegal to even mention it near a school! Kind of like the abortion bubble zones. The world would be a better place, I would think. A kinder, gentler place, where dog eat dog animalistic degrading pagan philosophies were treated for what they aree, rather than force them on kids as if it was science.
Another person trying to pass science off as a supernatural occurance. There is nothing "dirty" about evolution. The dirt is more connected to institutionalized corruption that seeps into all corners of the pond.
Why do you find what is obviously true offensive? What is offensive is belittling the potential of humans by demanding they lay aside reason and worship a creation story that has no bearing on reality, as it had been told. Moses fukked up on that one, live with it.
Too bad they couldn't just make it illegal to even mention it near a school! Kind of like the abortion bubble zones. The world would be a better place, I would think. A kinder, gentler place, where dog eat dog animalistic degrading pagan philosophies were treated for what they aree, rather than force them on kids as if it was science.
Another person trying to pass science off as a supernatural occurance. There is nothing "dirty" about evolution. The dirt is more connected to institutionalized corruption that seeps into all corners of the pond.
Why do you find what is obviously true offensive? What is offensive is belittling the potential of humans by demanding they lay aside reason and worship a creation story that has no bearing on reality, as it had been told. Moses fukked up on that one, live with it.
Why do religious nutcases argue on science forums?
Where in their bible does it say, 'And God Said, Let There Be Stupid'.
Where in their bible does it say, 'And God Said, Let There Be Stupid'.
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 23 2009, 07:11 PM)
Look at the topic of the thread here. Do you see any science? I wish someone would bring some in. Then all would be able to see the weakness of the lies that have been mouthed around here.
There is no science to take evolving anywhere near the wacko dreamland that so called science has fabricated.
And I dare you to prove otherwise.
Lots of insanity here.
There is no science to take evolving anywhere near the wacko dreamland that so called science has fabricated.
And I dare you to prove otherwise.
Lots of insanity here.
The point is that evolution has not been falsified, not that it has been proven.
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 23 2009, 07:18 PM)
Not really, you haven't really tried to defend evolution from the pond yet. That is when the religious quackery that is so called science, and insanity, and humor surfaces. I understand your hesitation in trying to do it.
Do you ever have moments of clarity, when you say to yourself, 'boy, am I batshit crazy'.
Do you ever have moments of clarity, when you say to yourself, 'boy, am I batshit crazy'.
I guess not.
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 24 2009, 12:36 AM)
Meaning what? Define evolution? How could a real created trait be 'falsified'? And, of course, the pond needs no more falsification than the tooth fairy!
The creation story in the bible could be credibly likened to the tooth fairy, except that it is more absurd.
The creation story in the bible could be credibly likened to the tooth fairy, except that it is more absurd.
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 24 2009, 01:28 AM)
Except that isn't the topic. It is evolution. You are asked to define it.
The topic is not about defining evolution.
The topic is not about defining evolution.
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 24 2009, 01:28 AM)
Except that isn't the topic. It is evolution. You are asked to define it. Whats a matter, yellow?
You got something better?
Something that doesn't involve records kept by people.
You got something better?
Something that doesn't involve records kept by people.
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 24 2009, 01:28 AM)
Except that isn't the topic. It is evolution. You are asked to define it. Whats a matter, yellow?
The topic is not defining evolution either, it is about displaying the weaknesses of evolution which is something you've yet to do.
The topic is not defining evolution either, it is about displaying the weaknesses of evolution which is something you've yet to do.
QUOTE
Since I know that evolving was a cxreated trait, why would I need anything better?
You 'know' this how?
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 24 2009, 01:45 AM)
It is about strength and weakness of same. If you can't or won't define it, I would say it is weak indeed! Thanks for that.
He's asking someone to show him some weaknesses, fu(%tard... Are YOU up to the challenge? "Whats a matter, yellow?"
He's asking someone to show him some weaknesses, fu(%tard... Are YOU up to the challenge? "Whats a matter, yellow?"
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 24 2009, 01:49 AM)
Since I know that evolving was a created trait, why would I need anything better? I simply want to make sure no one thinks evolution is against creation. If anyone dares define it as such, why, they can expect trouble here. If not, why, there can be peace in the land.
By the way, if you despise records kept by men, who keeps your records, worms?
It's written in stone.
By the way, if you despise records kept by men, who keeps your records, worms?
It's written in stone.
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 24 2009, 01:54 AM)
I know it because you know squat else to deny it or refute it. We could use the word believe there, to save idiotic time wasting, off topic banter, if you like.
I believe in evolving, as a creation trait. Therefore, the only enemy I have in the evolution debate is that lie that says that the evolving started in some proverbial pond.
So, can you take it there, or not!!!!!!?
Dad1 - I have been saying this whole time that evolution is not a creation story and that it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
I believe in evolving, as a creation trait. Therefore, the only enemy I have in the evolution debate is that lie that says that the evolving started in some proverbial pond.
So, can you take it there, or not!!!!!!?
Dad1 - I have been saying this whole time that evolution is not a creation story and that it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
QUOTE
We could use the word believe there,
Much better. 'Know' implies knowledge. Believe implies faith in things unseen without knowledge or evidence. And there is nothing of knowledge or knowing in your position.
But since your belief has no referents in the real, physical universe, it is irrelevant.
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 24 2009, 02:09 AM)
The strength of evolution, is that we needed it to adapt to the still largely inhospitable earth after leaving Eden. The weakness, is that some grasp at the evolving trait, and make a god of it, as if all started from and for, and by it, and it alone!
The people who try to hold the ToE up as a creation story do so out of a misunderstanding of the theory. The bit about Eden I cannot really speak on as it is not suggested by any evidence that I am aware of and seems to be nothing more than blind assumption. Lets try to keep this discussion to the evidence and the conclusions that it supports.
The people who try to hold the ToE up as a creation story do so out of a misunderstanding of the theory. The bit about Eden I cannot really speak on as it is not suggested by any evidence that I am aware of and seems to be nothing more than blind assumption. Lets try to keep this discussion to the evidence and the conclusions that it supports.
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 23 2009, 09:20 PM)
How would you know? I doubt you even know my position.
You 'believe'. And that's enough for you.
That's all I really need to know about you and your positions..
duh!
Creation fables such as the Garden of Eden??? 10,000 year old Earth??? 6 day creation week??? Noah's flood??? Boy, you sure are stupid, Duh! And a hypocrit as well!!!
QUOTE
My beliefs regarding evolving, unlike yours, are not linked to creation fables that come off as science.
Creation fables such as the Garden of Eden??? 10,000 year old Earth??? 6 day creation week??? Noah's flood??? Boy, you sure are stupid, Duh! And a hypocrit as well!!!
QUOTE (dad1+Feb 24 2009, 04:21 AM)
No, I am not aware that Eden is coming off as science!? Yet the pond does. Smelly, that. But, fluff aside, can you prove that evolving goes back mmore than 6000 years or not? NNo is the answer.
Yes, we can. But you either don't understand the evidence, or you choose not to accept it, and so you will never accept the proof.
For example, genetic evidence has placed the human-chimpanzee split at about 5,000,000 years ago.
Yes, we can. But you either don't understand the evidence, or you choose not to accept it, and so you will never accept the proof.
For example, genetic evidence has placed the human-chimpanzee split at about 5,000,000 years ago.
Why are you people still arguing with this idiot? Seriously, just report him and leave him be.
QUOTE (rayolight+Feb 28 2009, 06:13 AM)
Can you show how?
Sure. Examination of the fossil evidence is corroborated by examination of the genetic evidence. Fossils found in sedimentary beds dated at ~5mil years ago correspond well with known retrovirus markers and known rates of mutation. The evidence places the last common ancestor of chipanzees and humans at about 5mil years ago.
Sure. Examination of the fossil evidence is corroborated by examination of the genetic evidence. Fossils found in sedimentary beds dated at ~5mil years ago correspond well with known retrovirus markers and known rates of mutation. The evidence places the last common ancestor of chipanzees and humans at about 5mil years ago.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 28 2009, 06:17 AM)
Sure. Examination of the fossil evidence is corroborated by examination of the genetic evidence. Fossils found in sedimentary beds dated at ~5mil years ago correspond well with known retrovirus markers and known rates of mutation. The evidence places the last common ancestor of chipanzees and humans at about 5mil years ago.
So you suggest that known rates of mutation, align with known rates of deposition? Can you flesh out that bone?
So you suggest that known rates of mutation, align with known rates of deposition? Can you flesh out that bone?
QUOTE (rayolight+Feb 28 2009, 08:44 PM)
So you suggest that known rates of mutation, align with known rates of deposition? Can you flesh out that bone?
I mean that a morphological examination of the fossil evidence has identified probable common ancestors, and that two or more methods of dating - 1) fossils' position in the geological column, 2) isochron dating of the relevant fossils, and 3) a calculation based on the number observed mutations in human and chimpanzee DNA and the known rate of mutation - all confirm the same age, and thus time frame, for our the last common ancestor.
I mean that a morphological examination of the fossil evidence has identified probable common ancestors, and that two or more methods of dating - 1) fossils' position in the geological column, 2) isochron dating of the relevant fossils, and 3) a calculation based on the number observed mutations in human and chimpanzee DNA and the known rate of mutation - all confirm the same age, and thus time frame, for our the last common ancestor.
QUOTE
I mean that a morphological examination of the fossil evidence has identified probable common ancestors,
While there are some probable ancestors, that is not a carte blanche cause of all life.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I mean that a morphological examination of the fossil evidence has identified probable common ancestors, |
While there are some probable ancestors, that is not a carte blanche cause of all life.
and that two or more methods of dating - 1) fossils' position in the geological column,
That is relative. It says what likely lived first, not when.
QUOTE
2) isochron dating of the relevant fossils,
Big topic, suffice it to say, I disagree that any accuracy is involved there.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 2) isochron dating of the relevant fossils, |
Big topic, suffice it to say, I disagree that any accuracy is involved there.
and 3) a calculation based on the number observed mutations in human and chimpanzee DNA and the known rate of mutation -
So a simple backward extrapolation of known rates. However, what is not known, is how long these rates were in effect.
QUOTE
all confirm the same age, and thus time frame, for our the last common ancestor.
All assumptions that are similar yield similar results. How surprising. The only place, however any ages are confirmed, is in your head.
More and more you sound like dad1.... funny, that.
QUOTE (rayolight+)
While there are some probable ancestors, that is not a carte blanche cause of all life.
I did not say that it was the cause of all life. I said that science found fossils that were identified as common ancestors to both humans and chimpanzees. Nothing in the slightest to do with any "cause of all life".
I did not say that it was the cause of all life. I said that science found fossils that were identified as common ancestors to both humans and chimpanzees. Nothing in the slightest to do with any "cause of all life".
QUOTE (rayolight+)
That is relative. It says what likely lived first, not when.
Although I agree that placement in the geologic column is not sufficient evidence in and of itself, it is supportive evidence that is corroborated by other dating methods.
Although I agree that placement in the geologic column is not sufficient evidence in and of itself, it is supportive evidence that is corroborated by other dating methods.
QUOTE (rayolight+)
Big topic, suffice it to say, I disagree that any accuracy is involved there.
On the contrary, isochron dating is quite accurate. For you to say otherwise simply illustrates your lack of understanding of the method.
On the contrary, isochron dating is quite accurate. For you to say otherwise simply illustrates your lack of understanding of the method.
QUOTE (rayolight+)
So a simple backward extrapolation of known rates. However, what is not known, is how long these rates were in effect.
Let me guess, prior to "the flood" the laws of the universe were different? Uh huh.... we've heard that one before...
Let me guess, prior to "the flood" the laws of the universe were different? Uh huh.... we've heard that one before...
QUOTE (rayolight+)
All assumptions that are similar yield similar results. How surprising. The only place, however any ages are confirmed, is in your head.
Isochron dating is very much not an assumption, and it's not just my head, it's the majority of the scientific community.
Isochron dating is very much not an assumption, and it's not just my head, it's the majority of the scientific community.
QUOTE
More and more you sound like dad1.... funny, that.
Hilarious. In other areas of this forum, I apparently sound like other ghosts. But as far as I can tell, some posters are censured here, so maybe they prefer to talk as ghosts. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More and more you sound like dad1.... funny, that. |
Hilarious. In other areas of this forum, I apparently sound like other ghosts. But as far as I can tell, some posters are censured here, so maybe they prefer to talk as ghosts.
Although I agree that placement in the geologic column is not sufficient evidence in and of itself, it is supportive evidence that is corroborated by other dating methods.
Although I agree that placement in the geologic column is not sufficient evidence in and of itself, it is supportive evidence that is corroborated by other dating methods.
Supportive of what, however, is the question.
No idea. Why, do we know they will be the same always?
No idea. Why, do we know they will be the same always?
Isochron dating is very much not an assumption, and it's not just my head, it's the majority of the scientific community.
QUOTE
Let me guess, prior to "the flood" the laws of the universe were different? Uh huh.... we've heard that one before...
No idea. Why, do we know they will be the same always?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Let me guess, prior to "the flood" the laws of the universe were different? Uh huh.... we've heard that one before... |
No idea. Why, do we know they will be the same always?
Isochron dating is very much not an assumption, and it's not just my head, it's the majority of the scientific community.
It is what it is. If you want to look into the underlying assumptions of that method, we can do that. In the end, you will see that it is based on certain assumptions.
rayolight
I think you feel you are safe to assume that you will wake up tommorrow, that the air will be breathable, that your digestive system will supply you with nourishment, that you will survive to find the same things to be true tommorrow, and the day after that...
We can be confident in the assumptions we make(of necessity) because they have proven themselves to be reliable, so far. Assuming that radioactive decay and the ratios they give us are accurate is actually more reliable than assuming any of the above. Radioactive decay can be observed(directly) throughout the Universe and much further back in time than man has existed, or the Earth, or breathable air, or life itself. Don't for one second, think you will undo our confidence in that process based on your religious beliefss.
I think you feel you are safe to assume that you will wake up tommorrow, that the air will be breathable, that your digestive system will supply you with nourishment, that you will survive to find the same things to be true tommorrow, and the day after that...
We can be confident in the assumptions we make(of necessity) because they have proven themselves to be reliable, so far. Assuming that radioactive decay and the ratios they give us are accurate is actually more reliable than assuming any of the above. Radioactive decay can be observed(directly) throughout the Universe and much further back in time than man has existed, or the Earth, or breathable air, or life itself. Don't for one second, think you will undo our confidence in that process based on your religious beliefss.
But as far as I can tell, some posters are censured here, so maybe they prefer to talk as ghosts.
If you cannot produce valid evidence for your claims, you will be booted to the curb as well. This is a physics forum, don't waste our time with ignorance of the duh! variety.
Grumpy
QUOTE
If you want to look into the underlying assumptions of that method, we can do that. In the end, you will see that it is based on certain assumptions.
I think you feel you are safe to assume that you will wake up tommorrow, that the air will be breathable, that your digestive system will supply you with nourishment, that you will survive to find the same things to be true tommorrow, and the day after that...
We can be confident in the assumptions we make(of necessity) because they have proven themselves to be reliable, so far. Assuming that radioactive decay and the ratios they give us are accurate is actually more reliable than assuming any of the above. Radioactive decay can be observed(directly) throughout the Universe and much further back in time than man has existed, or the Earth, or breathable air, or life itself. Don't for one second, think you will undo our confidence in that process based on your religious beliefss.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you want to look into the underlying assumptions of that method, we can do that. In the end, you will see that it is based on certain assumptions. |
I think you feel you are safe to assume that you will wake up tommorrow, that the air will be breathable, that your digestive system will supply you with nourishment, that you will survive to find the same things to be true tommorrow, and the day after that...
We can be confident in the assumptions we make(of necessity) because they have proven themselves to be reliable, so far. Assuming that radioactive decay and the ratios they give us are accurate is actually more reliable than assuming any of the above. Radioactive decay can be observed(directly) throughout the Universe and much further back in time than man has existed, or the Earth, or breathable air, or life itself. Don't for one second, think you will undo our confidence in that process based on your religious beliefss.
But as far as I can tell, some posters are censured here, so maybe they prefer to talk as ghosts.
If you cannot produce valid evidence for your claims, you will be booted to the curb as well. This is a physics forum, don't waste our time with ignorance of the duh! variety.
Grumpy
QUOTE (rayolight+Mar 1 2009, 07:58 AM)
Hilarious. In other areas of this forum, I apparently sound like other ghosts. But as far as I can tell, some posters are censured here, so maybe they prefer to talk as ghosts.
Supportive of what, however, is the question.
No idea. Why, do we know they will be the same always?
It is what it is. If you want to look into the underlying assumptions of that method, we can do that. In the end, you will see that it is based on certain assumptions.
On other forums people are banned for stating true things.
Christian forums banning people for pointing out that animals engage in homosexual behaviour for instance.
Here accuracy and being able to back it up is what counts.
Supportive of what, however, is the question.
No idea. Why, do we know they will be the same always?
It is what it is. If you want to look into the underlying assumptions of that method, we can do that. In the end, you will see that it is based on certain assumptions.
On other forums people are banned for stating true things.
Christian forums banning people for pointing out that animals engage in homosexual behaviour for instance.
Here accuracy and being able to back it up is what counts.
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 1 2009, 03:16 PM)
On other forums people are banned for stating true things.
Christian forums banning people for pointing out that animals engage in homosexual behaviour for instance.
Here accuracy and being able to back it up is what counts.
I was banned from Grace Centered forums for providing links to concrete evidence for the ToE and again for providing a link to an article that discussed bonobo sexual habits, and the homosexuality of other mammals. Some people are so afraid that they will be forced to see the absurdity of their beliefs that they cannot even ignore the evidence anymore, they must keep themselves from being exposed to it in any way.
Just backing you up.
Christian forums banning people for pointing out that animals engage in homosexual behaviour for instance.
Here accuracy and being able to back it up is what counts.
I was banned from Grace Centered forums for providing links to concrete evidence for the ToE and again for providing a link to an article that discussed bonobo sexual habits, and the homosexuality of other mammals. Some people are so afraid that they will be forced to see the absurdity of their beliefs that they cannot even ignore the evidence anymore, they must keep themselves from being exposed to it in any way.
Just backing you up.
QUOTE (DuzmA+Feb 22 2009, 06:22 PM)
I want you all to see this:
Strengths and Weaknesses
Texas removed the strengths and weaknesses language from its textbooks, but that language could reappear at any time. I take serious issue with this because it is misleading to the general public and in my opinion it is just absurd. I am unaware of any weaknesses in the ToE. That language implies that some non-supported assumptions have been made in order to make the theory workable, and to my knowledge that is just not the case. Will someone please explain to me where the term 'weaknesses' belongs in reference to the ToE?
Here's a current article where scientists discuss weaknesses: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true
Evolution: The next 200 years; 28 January 2009
Some are: origins theory, the unknown role that geographical isolation has played in creating new species? etc.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Texas removed the strengths and weaknesses language from its textbooks, but that language could reappear at any time. I take serious issue with this because it is misleading to the general public and in my opinion it is just absurd. I am unaware of any weaknesses in the ToE. That language implies that some non-supported assumptions have been made in order to make the theory workable, and to my knowledge that is just not the case. Will someone please explain to me where the term 'weaknesses' belongs in reference to the ToE?
Here's a current article where scientists discuss weaknesses: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true
Evolution: The next 200 years; 28 January 2009
Some are: origins theory, the unknown role that geographical isolation has played in creating new species? etc.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Mar 19 2009, 09:22 PM)
Here's a current article where scientists discuss weaknesses: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2012....html?full=true
Evolution: The next 200 years; 28 January 2009
Some are: origins theory, the unknown role that geographical isolation has played in creating new species? etc.
Those are weaknesses only if you can't accept the answer "we don't know".
Do you have anything better?
Evolution: The next 200 years; 28 January 2009
Some are: origins theory, the unknown role that geographical isolation has played in creating new species? etc.
Those are weaknesses only if you can't accept the answer "we don't know".
Do you have anything better?
I think Origins Theory is going to breakthrough like String Theory: where someone is going to discover one or two ways in which there could be abiogenesis, and then (after some thought) people are going to realise that there are gazillions of scenarios where abiogenesis could occur.
Mostly what're needed are proper models of how strings of RNA or amino acids will act in solution. We're not really there, since it's such a calculation-intensive exercise (which is why contributing to folding@home is so beneficial)
Mostly what're needed are proper models of how strings of RNA or amino acids will act in solution. We're not really there, since it's such a calculation-intensive exercise (which is why contributing to folding@home is so beneficial)
QUOTE (buttershug+Mar 19 2009, 10:45 PM)
Those are weaknesses only if you can't accept the answer "we don't know".
Do you have anything better?
Nope, not at the moment :-P I don't think you'd believe me.
Hope you stay dry, its rainy here, today.
Physicist Receives Million-Pound Prize for Predicting a 'Hypercosmic God'
Article discussed on the ICR website;March 2009: http://www.icr.org/article/4573/
Do you have anything better?
Nope, not at the moment :-P I don't think you'd believe me.
Hope you stay dry, its rainy here, today.
Physicist Receives Million-Pound Prize for Predicting a 'Hypercosmic God'
Article discussed on the ICR website;March 2009: http://www.icr.org/article/4573/
ICR doesn't work for me.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/38239
Shorter: Science is how we learn what is.
http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html
More coverage and comments here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03...iving_a_tem.php
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/38239
QUOTE
In a statement d’Espagnat said “I feel myself deeply in accordance with the Templeton Foundation’s great, guiding idea that science does shed light [on spirituality]. In my view it does so mainly by rendering unbelievable an intellectual construction claiming to yield access to the ultimate ground of things with the sole use of the simple, somewhat trivial notions everybody has.”
Shorter: Science is how we learn what is.
http://www.templetonprize.org/currentwinner.html
More coverage and comments here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03...iving_a_tem.php
Yeah RP 
....... this stuff sucks like an immoderately parched elephant @ a water-hole, after ingesting 27,000 particularly salty cream-crackers.
How can quantum interconnectivity be seen as some proof of god?; just plain barefaced ignorance, of totally non-humble magnitude, I say.
The Templeton Prize? ...... I'd donate the cash to these guys.
....... this stuff sucks like an immoderately parched elephant @ a water-hole, after ingesting 27,000 particularly salty cream-crackers.How can quantum interconnectivity be seen as some proof of god?; just plain barefaced ignorance, of totally non-humble magnitude, I say.
The Templeton Prize? ...... I'd donate the cash to these guys.
If I'm reading things correctly, and I could be wrong, his approach to physics shows that there could be this 'parallel hyperdimension' (which is somewhat in vogue these days), but that there's no way to interface with or influence this hyperdimension ...
Doesn't that pretty well completely deny most conceptions of God?
And I have another charity to recommend, too.
Doesn't that pretty well completely deny most conceptions of God?
And I have another charity to recommend, too.
QUOTE (DuzmA+)
....That language implies that some non-supported assumptions have been made in order to make the theory workable, and to my knowledge that is just not the case...
I think seperation of church of state is a false Dichotomy that is really hindering science.
In Texas I am glad that they are able to critically analyze theories from all presuppositions. A leading factor this passed, I assume, were the dinosaur in human footprints. A booklet disproving some evolutionary theories is here, if you wanted the info: http://evolution-facts.org/Downloads.htm
In science it can be helpful to understand multiple presuppositions. It is also helpful to have a solid foundation.
I think seperation of church of state is a false Dichotomy that is really hindering science.
In Texas I am glad that they are able to critically analyze theories from all presuppositions. A leading factor this passed, I assume, were the dinosaur in human footprints. A booklet disproving some evolutionary theories is here, if you wanted the info: http://evolution-facts.org/Downloads.htm
In science it can be helpful to understand multiple presuppositions. It is also helpful to have a solid foundation.
Edit: Double Post, no delete
Why do they use so many junk arguements?
and why do they fight Evolution?
Why not defend Creationism?
You can't fight science. And flaws you find only make it stronger because then it takes another step from being wrong to being right.
Religion has no such mechanism. Is there one God, many Gods? The people who have it wrong have no way to go from being mistaken to being right.
and why do they fight Evolution?
Why not defend Creationism?
You can't fight science. And flaws you find only make it stronger because then it takes another step from being wrong to being right.
Religion has no such mechanism. Is there one God, many Gods? The people who have it wrong have no way to go from being mistaken to being right.
The homepage is newer than the downloadable material. Mankind doesn't have absolute knowledge. If you use the bible to look at creation you get another viewpoint besides evolutionary theory. When I was in school public school teachers mentioned the flood as a theory but now they changed their minds. The website (creationists) possibly do not defend their creation apologetics because they see creation as evidence for a Creator.
Other religions do not make claims the bible does about itself. (Summarized from
Presuppositional Reasoning with False Faiths by Dr. Greg Bahnsen
April 8, 2009; http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2...g-false-faiths)
Alot of science deals with naturalism/physicalism. A possible example of what you might call non-science. Off the subject of physics would be: "feelings" Actually some atheis tunfortunately might be wanting to reject the truth itself no matter how scientific because of what they choose to believe!
Other religions do not make claims the bible does about itself. (Summarized from
Presuppositional Reasoning with False Faiths by Dr. Greg Bahnsen
April 8, 2009; http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2...g-false-faiths)
Alot of science deals with naturalism/physicalism. A possible example of what you might call non-science. Off the subject of physics would be: "feelings" Actually some atheis tunfortunately might be wanting to reject the truth itself no matter how scientific because of what they choose to believe!
This applies to any person in general (not just scientists, or stalinists).
TracerTong
Atheists chose NOT to believe religionist drivel based on superstitious non-sense.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Actually some atheis t...because of what they choose to believe!
Atheists chose NOT to believe religionist drivel based on superstitious non-sense.
Grumpy
QUOTE (TracerTong+Apr 10 2009, 07:49 PM)
The homepage is newer than the downloadable material. Mankind doesn't have absolute knowledge. If you use the bible to look at creation you get another viewpoint besides evolutionary theory. When I was in school public school teachers mentioned the flood as a theory but now they changed their minds. The website (creationists) possibly do not defend their creation apologetics because they see creation as evidence for a Creator.
Other religions do not make claims the bible does about itself. (Summarized from
Presuppositional Reasoning with False Faiths by Dr. Greg Bahnsen
April 8, 2009; http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2...g-false-faiths)
Alot of science deals with naturalism/physicalism. A possible example of what you might call non-science. Off the subject of physics would be: "feelings" Actually some atheis tunfortunately might be wanting to reject the truth itself no matter how scientific because of what they choose to believe!
Theists reject what they find when they find something that contradicts what they have faith in. If they didn't it wouldn't be faith, now would it?
Proper scientists reject what they believe when they find evidence that contradicts what they believe.
I've been reading that Evolution crunher.
They accept what they agree with and reject what they don't agree with.
They evaluate evidence based on what they believe.
Scientists evaluate what they believe on evidence.
Edit the Koran claims that it is true and was dictated by God to Mohammed.
I would be suprised if the Book Of Mormon does not also claim to the true word of God. And it claims the angel Moroni gave gold Tablets to some Joe.
I guess God gave up on inspiring people then found that even dictating didn't work so tried giving a book directly. Too bad it got lost. I'd love to see it.
Other religions do not make claims the bible does about itself. (Summarized from
Presuppositional Reasoning with False Faiths by Dr. Greg Bahnsen
April 8, 2009; http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2...g-false-faiths)
Alot of science deals with naturalism/physicalism. A possible example of what you might call non-science. Off the subject of physics would be: "feelings" Actually some atheis tunfortunately might be wanting to reject the truth itself no matter how scientific because of what they choose to believe!
Theists reject what they find when they find something that contradicts what they have faith in. If they didn't it wouldn't be faith, now would it?
Proper scientists reject what they believe when they find evidence that contradicts what they believe.
I've been reading that Evolution crunher.
They accept what they agree with and reject what they don't agree with.
They evaluate evidence based on what they believe.
Scientists evaluate what they believe on evidence.
Edit the Koran claims that it is true and was dictated by God to Mohammed.
I would be suprised if the Book Of Mormon does not also claim to the true word of God. And it claims the angel Moroni gave gold Tablets to some Joe.
I guess God gave up on inspiring people then found that even dictating didn't work so tried giving a book directly. Too bad it got lost. I'd love to see it.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.