intelligent design bashing is getting old...

[The_Big_Boss]

Evidence, in all its glory, requires interpretation tho. Unless your well educated in all those fields, your just working on good practical faith of what other people are saying.

And even in those fields, there are disagreements. You know, its just gained recent attention, but we think dinosours had feathers on them. Where did this come from? You can imagine how that messed up progressive flow charts. Oops. Sorry, science may be good science, but this is bad history and philosophy. Evolution is just a theory. You cant use evolution to prove biology, thats an assumption not a proof. They work hand in hand, thats because evolution is a guess based on what we know >_>. Of course we are rationally gonna frame it to biology. Its a good guesstimate. Science is a guesstimate.

[tombom]

People who have no idea about anything to do with science and can't even do a cursory search for information should probably stop posting, or at least try and make some sense. Evolution is not a "guess based on what we know"; we can prove it happens as much as we can prove anything, because it has been reproduced many times, under observation

[PicassoCT]

Well, for all those believers that logic can enter the world of Believers - forget it. You are simply training there "convert-others-by-semiscientistic-discussion"- skillz, none of your words can enter those closed worlds, or even spark doubt. Hell, you could take muhameds or jesus grave, take out there DNA- clone them, and proof that they were mortals - it doesen´t reach the target. This people really depend on there worldviews, like a footamputated on a crutch - there religion could only be replaced with other personality supporting believe system, otherewise they would have really proplems with life. Guess what big Conspiracytheories those will come up with, once you nailed them with proof..

There are other means... understanding the mechanism, building countermemes, draining the personal support...

During the Coldwar, Germany builded up a huge socialsystem to counter the "Temptations" of Comunism- and guess how fast churches can empty once people don´t have to rely on them as social-emergency-nets....

[The_Big_Boss]

Piccaso, where do u think science originated from? :/

People who have no idea about anything to do with science and can't even do a cursory search for information should probably stop posting, or at least try and make some sense. Evolution is not a "guess based on what we know"; we can prove it happens as much as we can prove anything, because it has been reproduced many times, under observation

Why did you post this?

[SwiftSpear]

Evidence, in all its glory, requires interpretation tho. Unless your well educated in all those fields, your just working on good practical faith of what other people are saying.

And even in those fields, there are disagreements. You know, its just gained recent attention, but we think dinosours had feathers on them. Where did this come from? You can imagine how that messed up progressive flow charts. Oops. Sorry, science may be good science, but this is bad history and philosophy. Evolution is just a theory. You cant use evolution to prove biology, thats an assumption not a proof. They work hand in hand, thats because evolution is a guess based on what we know >_>. Of course we are rationally gonna frame it to biology. Its a good guesstimate. Science is a guesstimate.

Cause this is just wrong.

[Cabbage]

Intelligent design / creationism is the biggest pile of steaming shite i have ever had the misfortune of having to hear about. It's late and i cant be arsed to read the thread, but its disgusting that they are trying to brainwash young children with this bullshit.

Im not very articulate / rubbish at explaining things.. watch this chaps videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t

He pretty much sums up exactly how i feel.. except calmly and without being too rude..

creationism = pile of wank

[LordMatt]

Evidence, in all its glory, requires interpretation tho. Unless your well educated in all those fields, your just working on good practical faith of what other people are saying.

But this, in fact, is the whole point. I am an expert in a select field. I do not claim to understand all of the evidence that supports evolution, just a portion. And from that portion, I have discovered and published a small fraction. Nonetheless, I do not discount the work of others, in fact I embrace it, knowing that they know as much about their field as I know about mine, and thus I trust them to know the best that mankind knows in their particular subject. Those who have no scientific background seem quickest to criticize those who do, but on no basis other than their own ignorance.

What people often don't understand is that science is truth, as best mankind can ascertain it at the time that it is described, and while some details change from time to time, this is no reason to doubt the whole.

Piccaso, where do u think science originated from? :/

It is hard to say who were the first scientists, but there is no doubt that science owes something to the ancient Greek philosophic tradition. We now have many more tools with which to explore the questions that these early scientists pondered, but the thought process is not too different. We know where at least one of these thinkers stood on the question of God, Socrates was executed for refusing to believe in the gods of his city.

[Sleksa]

Evolution is just a theory. You cant use evolution to prove biology, thats an assumption not a proof.

bullshit.

Theres a lot of proof about evolution. Take the fossiles, for example, The older the fossiles are, the simpler they are in structure. A good example of this is the evolution of the fishes, that we all have learned from highschool/college ~~

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1904

The first fishes started off without any support structure in them (skeleton). later on they developed cartilage "spines", which in turn enabled them to grow bigger and to hunt more efficiently, or to evade hunters faster. and the most recent fishes have a bone support structure. There are also "living fossiles" that support/prove this, for example the latimeria chalumnae and the lampreys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil



Generally, there are flaws with the evolution, but the amount of them is decreasing, while the questionability of creationism is increasing.

[tombom]

Piccaso, where do u think science originated from? :/

People who have no idea about anything to do with science and can't even do a cursory search for information should probably stop posting, or at least try and make some sense. Evolution is not a "guess based on what we know"; we can prove it happens as much as we can prove anything, because it has been reproduced many times, under observation

Why did you post this?

Why did I post this? What kind of stupid stupid idiotic question is this? Your post came from ignorance and stupidity and barely even made sense, and you're asking me why I posted something? You seem to be taking the stance OMG IT'S JUST A THEORY WE CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING, which is as ridiculous as saying you can't prove I'm wearing a blue shirt; philosophically, maybe, being practical, no. If it comes from some deep seated ignorance of science, then you seem to lack the interest in actually learning about it and all the stuff we have done. Despite that, you still think we care what bullshit you're spouting, and that's astonishingly arrogant.

[SwiftSpear]

As I stated before. Evolution in an broad sense is not "theory", it's been proven over and over again. The part where "theory" comes in is when we attempt to describe in detail the mechanisms of evolution. Surely natural selection exists as a mechanism... but there is evidence to support the existence of other less palpable selective systems that we don't fully understand at this point in time, and there is evidence to indicate that within certain systems natural selection hasn't been taking place and evolution has still occurred, sometimes in very unexpected ways.

The reality is, like many other things in life, there is still a huge amount of anomaly in evolutionary science. Good creationism questions the origin of that anomaly... it's the bad creationism that assumes the anomaly disproves the theory.

In comparison, take ghost phenomena. There is alot of evidence to indicate it exists... yet we understand relatively little about it. Does that therefore disprove the laws of physics? Only and idiot would say that that is the case. However, there still is the reality that some phenomena is going on that is not understood.

[PicassoCT]

Piccaso, where do u think science originated from? :/

People who have no idea about anything to do with science and can't even do a cursory search for information should probably stop posting, or at least try and make some sense. Evolution is not a "guess based on what we know"; we can prove it happens as much as we can prove anything, because it has been reproduced many times, under observation

Why did you post this?

Sience comes out of the Sentence. I know that i know nothing, but i know that for shure. Everything that my brain interprets out of strange lightpattern is just a great guess- and all i have to cope with it is just logic(logos) or instincts(emo).

Sience works by taking the approach having the most waterproof arguments, whose proofs can reproduced in the Reality. So everything is able to get a theory, but there are strong and weak ones, depending how battleproofed they are (do i sense evolution at workx again...nonono )

So i know what sience is about, i know why i don´t trust unproofed rubish like intdesign (although i still take a curious look at it- there is still the 0,0000666% Chance i might be wrong) - the problem is, it workx for logical people, but no matter how much we proof to the believers that there theory is completely odds, you can´t enter logic into a magic (emo) worldview because the key to this lock is on the inside. Take a flatworld believer on a ship, sail around the world, take him into space, fly around the planet- and he will only see proof that the world is a flat disc, if there isn´t at least a spark rational thinking in his head already...

PS: Another good trick is to train there brain in boards like this in logical thinking, till all of the sudden they can´t stop that stuff. But that is hard work.. and i start to write walls of text... i am diseaased, spoiled, posessed... ARgh.....

and it is Pure (Really great viral marketing- always having a Modname in a positiv situation)win

[LordMatt]

As I stated before. Evolution in an broad sense is not "theory", it's been proven over and over again. The part where "theory" comes in is when we attempt to describe in detail the mechanisms of evolution. Surely natural selection exists as a mechanism... but there is evidence to support the existence of other less palpable selective systems that we don't fully understand at this point in time, and there is evidence to indicate that within certain systems natural selection hasn't been taking place and evolution has still occurred, sometimes in very unexpected ways.

You would have to give some examples for this statement to be meaningful.

In comparison, take ghost phenomena. There is alot of evidence to indicate it exists... yet we understand relatively little about it. Does that therefore disprove the laws of physics? Only and idiot would say that that is the case. However, there still is the reality that some phenomena is going on that is not understood.

It's all in your head.

[Jonanin]

Why is it not possible for one to believe in GOD and evolution?

[The_Big_Boss]

Calling me names? Come on now.

"It is hard to say who were the first scientists, but there is no doubt that science owes something to the ancient Greek philosophic tradition."

History channel credited it with originating with the Greeks, but the catholic church had created most of the processes and standards of what is scientific. You can start this on another thread if you want, its a little off topic.

Cause this is just wrong.

I like your comment. Right to the point.

What people often don't understand is that science is truth, as best mankind can ascertain it at the time that it is described, and while some details change from time to time, this is no reason to doubt the whole.

So science isnt truth, but is truth, because its man's best attempt at a certain time, in a certain area? Socrates would cry.

that we all have learned from highschool/college ~~

Your right, how could i be so stupid. If something is taught in highschool, therefore it must be true. Is this one of your scientific laws you speak of? You know, I dont have a problem with science, but i sure do have one with the scientific community. Limiting truth to highschool, regardless of other sources, and common sense, i think they've lost it. Well done Sleska. Well done. But thanks for all the fish.

Time for my history lesson #1. Dinosaurs.
You can read the whole thing here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
There are numerous sources, reports, and if ur lucky, u can watch one on tv on the science channel.

The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers.

Shortly after the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, British biologist and evolution-defender Thomas Henry Huxley proposed that birds were descendants of dinosaurs. He cited skeletal similarities, particularly among some saurischian dinosaurs, fossils of the 'first bird' Archaeopteryx and modern birds. In 1868 he published On the Animals which are Most Nearly Intermediate between Birds and Reptiles, making the case. The leading dinosaur expert of the time, Richard Owen, disagreed, claiming Archaeopteryx as the first bird outside dinosaur lineage.

2 people, 2 experts, but both under the name of science disagreeing with each other. Here's my favorite part.

For the next century, claims that birds were dinosaur descendants faded, with more popular bird-ancestry hypotheses including 'crocodylomorph' and 'thecodont' ancestors, rather than dinosaurs or other archosaurs.

There is a possibility that from what we were taught years ago in highschool, is now outdated. In fact, my school never mentioned feathered dinosaurs. Thus i assumed, there was only one theory, one reasonable and 100 percent accepted by the community theory. Why would i doubt, when nothing was presented to me to doubt?

Evidence, in all its glory, requires interpretation tho. Unless your well educated in all those fields, your just working on good practical faith of what other people are saying.

Yes. But i take this back. Evidence, in all its glory, requires interpretation though, for all people. Meaning we all have faith in a cause or force... muahaha. Heres the quote, among many other quotes, why i say evidence(Is evidence data thats already been determined to be useful for something? I mean data), requires interpretation.

In 1964, John Ostrom described Deinonychus antirrhopus, a theropod whose skeletal resemblance to birds seemed unmistakable. Ostrom has since become a leading proponent of the theory that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs.

It seemed unmistakable. lawl. It seemed? What happened to is? Big claim for something to be unmistakable in my opinion. Lets see if others view his findings the same way.

By the 1990s, most paleontologists considered birds to be surviving dinosaurs and referred to 'non-avian dinosaurs' (those that went extinct), to distinguish them from birds (aves or avian dinosaurs). Direct evidence to support the theory was missing, however. Some mainstream ornithologists, including Smithsonian Institution curator Storrs L. Olson, disputed the links, citing the lack of fossil evidence for feathered dinosaurs.

Wait. Direct evidence was missing? What happened to 'seemed unmistakable'?

After a century of hypotheses without hard evidence..

Wait wait wait. Even if it 'seemed unmistakable' why doesnt it seem unmistakable now? What a happened to Mr. Ostrom? It says he still leads his ideas. It was like, that statement, "After a century of hypotheses without hard evidence" ignored Ostrom's claims.

The Archaeoraptor fake
After a century of hypotheses without hard evidence, particularly well-preserved (and legitimate) fossils of feathered dinosaurs were discovered during the 1990s and 2000s...Norell et al (2007) reported quill knobs from an ulna of Velociraptor, and these are strongly correlated with large and well - developed secondary feathers.[3]

Heres some fossil evidence. This is recent, and it takes time for finds to become main stream. Thats why anybody over 7 years old, probably weren't taught in highschool the now dominant view that there were feathers on some dinosaurs. Heck, most importantly, that 8 year old isnt even in highschool yet. (:

Science is a nice thing, but history shows it changes all the time. You can't put feelings or patriotism or a cause with science. It is humans who use science, feelings and patriotisms wont affect computers or tools, but it can, and historically does, affect humans. For humans, as swiftspeare says, need more than just facts to survive, and they pick something that seems reasonable. Doesn't science seem most reasonable to some?

I just want to hear, in the very least, that the dinosaur science/history changes, that the truths about dinosaurs changes. That one man thought the evidence was clear, but it took 30 to 40 years for that to be accepted because to others it wasn't clear, and that an old world wide accepted idea is fading out...and this all happened in the modern, not the ancient or pre modern era, age.
Thats all i want. Look at other sources, i just used wiki cuz its easy, i honestly saw it first on the science channel, before i looked it at other sources. If you dont see it, then theres nothing I can do with this topic, other than my last trump card. And it goes back to the apple.

I apologize for this being so long. The next one will be short.

[tombom]

People believe incorrect things due to lack of fossil evidence at the time and lack of understanding. Years later opinion is revised because new evidence surfaced and they realised they were wrong.

OMG SCIENTISITS??????? MORE LIKE RELIGIONISTS LOL

Also scientists aren't a hive mind, everybody has a different opinion. You don't learn things 100% as we know them right now because school mostly teaches you bullshit for passing exams and isn't interested in giving you a well rounded education.

[The_Big_Boss]

Also scientists aren't a hive mind, everybody has a different opinion. You don't learn things 100% as we know them right now because school mostly teaches you bullshit for passing exams and isn't interested in giving you a well rounded education.

+1

[PicassoCT]

Nobody claimed that there are no wrong assumtions in sience - from time to time. There are diffrent thoughschools fighting each other, and sometimes the King of the Evidencehill changes.. which is great, because only concepts under constant attack, get waterproof evidence - or finally collaps into Phlogiston.
Natural Selection at workx... ups

Now for the difference - you can find scientists who will gladly admit they were wrong in a point, take the new evidence with a thx and work on. Lord Matt here will hug you, if you get him a fossil with a "MadebyGod" Stamp on one of its Bones, but you have to bring those bones, not just the assume there could be such bones..

I have yet to meet the religious believer, who proofed wrong will thank me, abandone his "old" theory and join to work on the new one. Seems really a challenge to treat ones believes non-emo, scientistically...

Hope i didn´t enrage- usually believers burn the Thread once they run out of evidence and words - and it was pretty funny till now and would be a loss..

[Comp1337]

Intelligent design / creationism is the biggest pile of steaming shite i have ever had the misfortune of having to hear about. It's late and i cant be arsed to read the thread, but its disgusting that they are trying to brainwash young children with this bullshit.

Im not very articulate / rubbish at explaining things.. watch this chaps videos:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t

He pretty much sums up exactly how i feel.. except calmly and without being too rude..

creationism = pile of wank

thunderfoot is fuckin brutal

And i feel really bad for the kids who are being indoctrinated with this unspeakable dogshit
Had they just laughed at it and ridiculed the teacher, then that would be ok
but i sense a zombie uprising in those kids just nodding and saying god

[jcnossen]

Bah religious threads suck. The creationists usually get the last word because they just annoy the shit out of the reasonable thinking people.
There is just no point in discussing it. They believe it, so it's not like you can use logical arguments to convince them otherwise.
For the same reason, people who claim to talk to deceased family still keep a following even when it is undeniably proven that their skills are fake.

[Sleksa]

Your right, how could i be so stupid. If something is taught in highschool, therefore it must be true. Is this one of your scientific laws you speak of? You know, I dont have a problem with science, but i sure do have one with the scientific community. Limiting truth to highschool, regardless of other sources, and common sense, i think they've lost it. Well done Sleska. Well done. But thanks for all the fish.

School is not a limit nor is it the absolute truth. It is meant to provide you with tools so that you could do your own thinking.

If something is taught in a college, it means that it is generally accepted by the majority of the people. Otherwise we would be learning facts about flying spaghettimonster and cthulhu.

because school mostly teaches you bullshit for passing exams and isn't interested in giving you a well rounded education.

no wonder the europe is filled with wiggers and and hardcore religion fanatics.

i met a french buddhist who said she converted to buddhism at the age of 10 because school didnt give him wisdom that would make her life happier.