zod, I think you misunderstand petrek's intention, even though, like you, I agree the article just serves to cements the scientific case for evolution and an ancient earth.
You may be right moonbeam, Its 5:30am and I wasn't thinking in those terms.
That article to me just means the scientific method is working perfectly. If ANYTHING it proves that science as a whole has no AGENDA. Scientists clamor to tear each other's hypotheses down. They live for it. Multi-Regional? Out of Africa? Whatever, all fascinating to anthropologists, but none disagree with the Theory (in caps), only the methods in which it works.
Dating techniques? Sure, maybe a little off, but we're talking about orders of magnitude... and they're not off by that much.
Personally I don't see how a Homo erectus being 600,000 vs 400,000 years old changes our views of human evolution THAT much... since if I had to guess, it is some mix of the multi-regional and out of africa ideas that really happened.
That article to me just means the scientific method is working perfectly. If ANYTHING it proves that science as a whole has no AGENDA. Scientists clamor to tear each other's hypotheses down. They live for it. Multi-Regional? Out of Africa? Whatever, all fascinating to anthropologists, but none disagree with the Theory (in caps), only the methods in which it works.
Dating techniques? Sure, maybe a little off, but we're talking about orders of magnitude... and they're not off by that much.
Personally I don't see how a Homo erectus being 600,000 vs 400,000 years old changes our views of human evolution THAT much... since if I had to guess, it is some mix of the multi-regional and out of africa ideas that really happened.
The streets will flow with the blood of the nonbelievers.
asismilate these answers I bequeth unto you..
umm
what was I talking about again?
hate it when that happens.
asismilate these answers I bequeth unto you..
umm
what was I talking about again?
hate it when that happens.
That article to me just means the scientific method is working perfectly. If ANYTHING it proves that science as a whole has no AGENDA.
I do not think that many people have a problem with science as a whole. However, we are getting to a point where many disciplines require hypothesis to be proved by theoretical arguments, based largely in Inductive Reasoning. Among these are astronomy, nuclear physics and microbiology. The problem appears when the results of these theoretical arguments are taught to youths as fact, as occurs in High School texts all the time, particularly in relation to evolutionary theory. What happens is exactly what we experience on these threads, people parroting the "fact" of evolutionary theory when they actually do not understand the etherealness of the substance on which these conclusions are based.
Why are these vaporous results taught to our youth with such certainty? Why isn't an accurate picture of the state of evolutionary theory taught? When you answer that question you will find the agenda.
Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.
ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
I do not think that many people have a problem with science as a whole. However, we are getting to a point where many disciplines require hypothesis to be proved by theoretical arguments, based largely in Inductive Reasoning. Among these are astronomy, nuclear physics and microbiology. The problem appears when the results of these theoretical arguments are taught to youths as fact, as occurs in High School texts all the time, particularly in relation to evolutionary theory. What happens is exactly what we experience on these threads, people parroting the "fact" of evolutionary theory when they actually do not understand the etherealness of the substance on which these conclusions are based.
Why are these vaporous results taught to our youth with such certainty? Why isn't an accurate picture of the state of evolutionary theory taught? When you answer that question you will find the agenda.
Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution.
ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?
DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?
ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?
PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
I agree, this thread is stupid.. lol.
Bah, I'm going to bed.. will read through it in the morning.
I still can't believe that there are people that believe the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Bah, I'm going to bed.. will read through it in the morning.
I still can't believe that there are people that believe the earth is only a few thousand years old.
PastorDon: Indeed, questions to ask ones high school science teacher... or even college prof, depending on where you are.
Why are these vaporous results taught to our youth with such certainty? Why isn't an accurate picture of the state of evolutionary theory taught? When you answer that question you will find the agenda.
I don't see any agenda, I see some self-important scientists trying to have their way. On the whole science is objective, the nature of science is competition, cheaters can be expected.
Regarding schools, what we have with science being taught as fact is a rebound from past extremities. Blacks were second class citizens, people were arrested on the suspicion of being communists, prosecuted for teaching things contradictory to the Bible, all of this propagated for the most part by Christians. Yeah, wonderful times. So, in trying to escape one brand of the absolutist disease they ran smack into a different one. Now, would you complain if Bible were taught as truth? My guess would be no, so it seems to me that this criticism of science is just a manifestion of defensive and procreational rationalizing, and not the objective analysis that it tries to make itself out to be.
I don't see any agenda, I see some self-important scientists trying to have their way. On the whole science is objective, the nature of science is competition, cheaters can be expected.
Regarding schools, what we have with science being taught as fact is a rebound from past extremities. Blacks were second class citizens, people were arrested on the suspicion of being communists, prosecuted for teaching things contradictory to the Bible, all of this propagated for the most part by Christians. Yeah, wonderful times. So, in trying to escape one brand of the absolutist disease they ran smack into a different one. Now, would you complain if Bible were taught as truth? My guess would be no, so it seems to me that this criticism of science is just a manifestion of defensive and procreational rationalizing, and not the objective analysis that it tries to make itself out to be.
Now, would you complain if Bible were taught as truth? My guess would be no,
Of course I wouldn't complain. BUT, I don't make the claims about myself that the proponents of the other side do for themselves. I have an agenda.
so it seems to me that this criticism of science is just a manifestion of defensive and procreational rationalizing, and not the objective analysis that it tries to make itself out to be.
I will be happy to be judged by the standards I place for myself, just as I judge the other side by the standards they place for themselves.
WHATEVER my motivations, my reasoning is sound.
Of course I wouldn't complain. BUT, I don't make the claims about myself that the proponents of the other side do for themselves. I have an agenda.
so it seems to me that this criticism of science is just a manifestion of defensive and procreational rationalizing, and not the objective analysis that it tries to make itself out to be.
I will be happy to be judged by the standards I place for myself, just as I judge the other side by the standards they place for themselves.
WHATEVER my motivations, my reasoning is sound.
GasX
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 29,033
- 6
- 81
<< PastorDon: Indeed, questions to ask ones high school science teacher... or even college prof, depending on where you are. >>
They maybe good questions to ask and will certainly generate some good discussion. The reality is that even your average middlke school Earth Sciences teacher could probably answer them all. If not then a college professor certainly could.
word to the wise: evolution is an established fact. The way in which it occurs is what is theoretical.
So then, what of the Vatican being a bunch of corrupt profiteers, what of the priests molesting little children. What of the hatred that is still being preached in many small Christian towns. Jesse Jackson? Jerry Fallwell? It's easy for the for the "other side" too, to judge Christians on "the standards they place for themselves". It's easy when you only see the bad parts that your subconcious allows you to see, for the sake of self-preservation.
So then, what of the Vatican being a bunch of corrupt profiteers, what of the priests molesting little children. What of the hatred that is still being preached in many small Christian towns. Jesse Jackson? Jerry Fallwell? It's easy for the for the "other side" too, to judge Christians on "the standards they place for themselves". It's easy when you only see the bad parts that your subconcious allows you to see, for the sake of self-preservation.
I understand the confusion, as it is hard to stay in context when a discussion is as disjointed as these tend to be. My use of "judge" had to do with the truth/false of a given idea. If I advocate a position (such as inerrancy of Scripture) then I will be very happy to debate that held to the standards I place for myself to determine whether this is true or not. Likewise, those who advocate complete objectivity and dependence only on conclusive evidence SHOULD be happy to have their ideas judged on that basis. However, if evolutionary theory is judged on strictly that basis, it is found that what we do know of evolution is poor support for all it is credited for.
This being said, you should feel free to judge Christians on the standards we place for ourselves. But, don't confuse the Catholic church with a Biblically based religion.
What of the hatred that is still being preached in many small Christian towns
What hatred? Is this hatred consistent with Biblical teachings?
Jerry Fallwell?
You say his name as if it is a self-concluding statement. What about Jerry Fallwell?
I understand the confusion, as it is hard to stay in context when a discussion is as disjointed as these tend to be. My use of "judge" had to do with the truth/false of a given idea. If I advocate a position (such as inerrancy of Scripture) then I will be very happy to debate that held to the standards I place for myself to determine whether this is true or not. Likewise, those who advocate complete objectivity and dependence only on conclusive evidence SHOULD be happy to have their ideas judged on that basis. However, if evolutionary theory is judged on strictly that basis, it is found that what we do know of evolution is poor support for all it is credited for.
This being said, you should feel free to judge Christians on the standards we place for ourselves. But, don't confuse the Catholic church with a Biblically based religion.
What of the hatred that is still being preached in many small Christian towns
What hatred? Is this hatred consistent with Biblical teachings?
Jerry Fallwell?
You say his name as if it is a self-concluding statement. What about Jerry Fallwell?
What hatred? Is this hatred consistent with Biblical teachings?
One could say, at least as much so as scientific theoritical absolutism is consistent with the ideal nature of science.
Jerry Fallwall and the hatred. Well, he basically inferred that the death of thousands of people in the WTC was deserved, as if he himself knows god's everymove (not to get into how a "personal" "loving" god would reap a collective punishment that includes own followers). Then you have his, at best, indifference towards abortion clinic bombings perpetrated by those who, you might say only claim to, follow the same Christian doctrine. It seems that the most outspoken Christians know nothing beyond playing the blame game, citing faults with everyone else, and basically being as unconstructive as possible with their words, completely locking out all those who don't agree with them. So yeah, you can judge Christians too on the "standards they place for themselves" and come to the conclusion "based on the evidence" as petrek would say, that they have their heads up their ass, but it's not as simple as that. That is focusing on the human "failure in practice" aspect, which inflicts all ideologies? Why do we focus on that aspect, when it serves no purpose other than to burn bridges? Because we're all partisan by default, we all migrate towards one pole or another, depending on circumstance, conditioning, etc.
We've completely overlooked the nature of "science" and "sprituality", one being discovery through the mind, the other being discovery through the heart. Ideally one can transcend and marry both into an understanding of a lack of understanding and subsequently find peace of mind humbling yourself before everything that could be, but even exclusively they have their respective places. When you judge one invalid, it seems to me that you're only denying yourself. Why preclude moreover, who are we humans to preclude. What harm can the possibility of alternate truths cause? But there it is. What harm? Plenty, it would shatter the ego, the way we as individuals have defined the world. No, that has to be blocked out, and so (as a testament to human ingenuity) we sub-conciously concieve a necessary defense that is, to ourselves, based on "facts" and "evidence" (precluding it from being "wishful thinking", we're damn clever), which makes it conveniently flawless. Blah blah blah.
I don't know, I feel that judgement is silly, better to think constructive. If you want to judge, do it to yourself before you do it to others.
One could say, at least as much so as scientific theoritical absolutism is consistent with the ideal nature of science.
Jerry Fallwall and the hatred. Well, he basically inferred that the death of thousands of people in the WTC was deserved, as if he himself knows god's everymove (not to get into how a "personal" "loving" god would reap a collective punishment that includes own followers). Then you have his, at best, indifference towards abortion clinic bombings perpetrated by those who, you might say only claim to, follow the same Christian doctrine. It seems that the most outspoken Christians know nothing beyond playing the blame game, citing faults with everyone else, and basically being as unconstructive as possible with their words, completely locking out all those who don't agree with them. So yeah, you can judge Christians too on the "standards they place for themselves" and come to the conclusion "based on the evidence" as petrek would say, that they have their heads up their ass, but it's not as simple as that. That is focusing on the human "failure in practice" aspect, which inflicts all ideologies? Why do we focus on that aspect, when it serves no purpose other than to burn bridges? Because we're all partisan by default, we all migrate towards one pole or another, depending on circumstance, conditioning, etc.
We've completely overlooked the nature of "science" and "sprituality", one being discovery through the mind, the other being discovery through the heart. Ideally one can transcend and marry both into an understanding of a lack of understanding and subsequently find peace of mind humbling yourself before everything that could be, but even exclusively they have their respective places. When you judge one invalid, it seems to me that you're only denying yourself. Why preclude moreover, who are we humans to preclude. What harm can the possibility of alternate truths cause? But there it is. What harm? Plenty, it would shatter the ego, the way we as individuals have defined the world. No, that has to be blocked out, and so (as a testament to human ingenuity) we sub-conciously concieve a necessary defense that is, to ourselves, based on "facts" and "evidence" (precluding it from being "wishful thinking", we're damn clever), which makes it conveniently flawless. Blah blah blah.
I don't know, I feel that judgement is silly, better to think constructive. If you want to judge, do it to yourself before you do it to others.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter