If Classicist is right then I guess we'll have to start having funerals for all of those miscarriages that happen. This could really be a boon to the coffin industry!
rem
Posts by rem
-
112Stem Cell Research article
by DevonMcBride inin today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.
the united states used to be number 1 in science research.
we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.
-
-
rem
-
37
Shining One's Link To A Dishonest ICR Article
by AlanF inin the thread "the skeptic's worst nightmare" ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96102/2.ashx ) shining one gave a link ( http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&id=2464 ) to an icr (institute for creation research) artcle titled "evolution--impossible to embarass its believers" by the icr's founder henry morris.
why was the soft tissue preserved?
all it means is, "we don't accept what real scientists say.
-
-
rem
Why are you bringing the Big Bang theory and Abiogenesis into a conversation about Evolution? Oh, that's right. Because you don't know what you're talking about.
rem, atheist class -
94
The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)
by Shining One incheck some of this out and you may see why there are two sides to the issues that are portrayed as so one sided here.
you will immediately smell the b.s.
emanating from the skeptic's book of bible stories!
-
-
rem
EW,
>> After watching that tho I was left with, boy the evolutionist really doesnt have much in the way of real progression of bones as the lay person invisions transition.
That's because the way a lay person invisions transitions is not how Evolution actually works.
rem -
61
Alan F's flaming arguments and insults
by Rex inhi alan, .
have you ever looked at the carved up mountains, hills and valleys?????
have examined the remarkable similarity to the mount st. helen's canyon that was carved our very quickly?
-
-
rem
Forbidden Archaeology doesn't have many modern sources for data. Most of it comes from the 19th and early 20th centuries. The author has never sent his "findings" in to any respected peer reviewed journals. He's basically a crackpot trying to prove his religion and interpreting any anomalous finding into evidence of his presuppositions.
A pretty good review of the book can be found here:
http://www.ramtops.co.uk/tarzia.html
No, man has not been around for hundreds of millions of years. There are simpler explanations for such things. One really simple explanation is that early geologists (and sometimes amateur geologists) simply misinterpreted the data.
Cheers,
rem -
94
The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)
by Shining One incheck some of this out and you may see why there are two sides to the issues that are portrayed as so one sided here.
you will immediately smell the b.s.
emanating from the skeptic's book of bible stories!
-
-
rem
EW,
Science is hard. Belief is easy. If you want to see the evidence it will take work and effort. Nobody can magically put all of the information into your brain for you. I suggest you get started if you are really interested - there are plenty of books and resources on the net. There may even be some classes you can take at your local community college. Pretending the evidence doesn't exist because you're too lazy to look it up is pretty immature.
rem -
7
Other People Believe Stupid Things Too!
by Swan inwe have an intern working in our office with us for the summer.
he is only seventeen-years-old, but is such a fountain of knowledge on many topics that he cannot help but offer his opinion on.
for example, although he doesn't play very much at home because of always losing to his father, he is still very generous with advice to two of us playing an ongoing chess game.
-
-
rem
Have him go to http://www.badastronomy.com/
-
94
The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)
by Shining One incheck some of this out and you may see why there are two sides to the issues that are portrayed as so one sided here.
you will immediately smell the b.s.
emanating from the skeptic's book of bible stories!
-
-
rem
EW,
Are you looking for 100% complete skeletons? That would be a pretty riduculous requirement. We have fragments of many individuals. We do have some amazing specimens, such as Lucy. Here is a picture:
http://secretebase.free.fr/evolution/origines/lucy.jpg
We have lots of Neanderthal specimens:
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/N/neanderthal/facts/neanderthal_skeleton.jpg
One of the most important features, though, is the skull, which gives us brain size and other important measurements for classification. Fortunately we have lots of those. The pelvis and other parts are also good to see whether the individual walked upright or not.
The problem is that all of the fossils are transitional and there is no one "missing link". Once anyone points to any candidate "missing link" you will simply ask for two more "missing links": one between this fossil and modern man and another between our ape-like ancestor and this fossil. This simply misses the point of how evolution works - it's gradual and there can be several parallel lines going on at once.
rem -
94
The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)
by Shining One incheck some of this out and you may see why there are two sides to the issues that are portrayed as so one sided here.
you will immediately smell the b.s.
emanating from the skeptic's book of bible stories!
-
-
rem
Guess you didn't check out the links because there is a hell of a lot more than skull caps available. Evidence doesn't have to be scary if you let go of your presuppositions.
rem -
22
How much science we take on "faith"
by Big Dog inno real point here, just a funny thought popped in my head as i was reading yet another thread where people were being hammered with scientific facts and theories and i was nodding my head agreeing with the rational fact based explination when a thought occured to me: i take quite a bit of science on "faith".. what i mean is this, when i am reading the explination of particle physics, quantum mechanics, or molecular biology i have to take it on faith as i can't do the mathematical proofs and so on to verify what i am being told and i assume that is the case with most of us non-rocket scientists, and probably even many in the fields of science and technology.
i like science, i enjoy reading discovery magazine and trying to keep up on the latest techno advancements, but i realized how much of it i take on "faith" as i have no way to verify or disprove what i am being told by a scientist.
i recall einstein saying once that something like 6 people in the world truly understood the implications of his work.. so if you want to argue "faith", i'd say that many that believe in science have just as much faith as those that believe in religion.
-
-
rem
The_Classicist
>> Don't be so sure. Most of the higher level stuff can't even be done by most scientists. It reminds me of a news story a while back where a physicist got a huge grant and wrote a paper. Unfortunately, it turned out that he made the whole thing up and it took quite a while before someone realized it.
Yes, sometimes it takes some time, but the self correcting nature of the scientific method does eventually win out, just as your example shows. Scientists found that things did not add up and the fraud was exposed. The same thing happened with Piltdown man and others. This is the scientific method at work.
rem -
22
How much science we take on "faith"
by Big Dog inno real point here, just a funny thought popped in my head as i was reading yet another thread where people were being hammered with scientific facts and theories and i was nodding my head agreeing with the rational fact based explination when a thought occured to me: i take quite a bit of science on "faith".. what i mean is this, when i am reading the explination of particle physics, quantum mechanics, or molecular biology i have to take it on faith as i can't do the mathematical proofs and so on to verify what i am being told and i assume that is the case with most of us non-rocket scientists, and probably even many in the fields of science and technology.
i like science, i enjoy reading discovery magazine and trying to keep up on the latest techno advancements, but i realized how much of it i take on "faith" as i have no way to verify or disprove what i am being told by a scientist.
i recall einstein saying once that something like 6 people in the world truly understood the implications of his work.. so if you want to argue "faith", i'd say that many that believe in science have just as much faith as those that believe in religion.
-
-
rem
I think if you define the word "faith" that loosely then you get yourself into all sorts of trouble. For instance, you just have to have faith that Greenland exists.
I see your point, though. It can get down to the point where you have to have faith that the evidence for a theory exists because you cannot verify it first hand. At that point it comes down to confidence in the scientific method (Peer review, replication, etc.). I have a pretty high confidence in the method because of the tangible results that it is directly responsible for. If it didn't work, we wouldn't be typing away on this here intarweb today. :)
As a pragmatic person, if it did not produce results, then I would be a lot more skeptical about the extraordinary claims of quantum physics and relativity, etc.
That's not to say that the scientific method is infallible or doesn't have issues, but it's the best system of gaining knowledge that we've got and the good thing about it is that it is self correcting over time.
rem
