No, the point you're trying to make is that science is black or white, either 100% infallible Truth from the beginning of time, or worthless garbage that isn't even remotely right. But science doesn't work like that, there is such a thing as refining a theory based on new evidence. In fact, that is entirely what science is about. This new information is not contradictory of the existing theory, it only appears that way because you haven't made the effort to understand what the hell you're talking about.
No, the point you're trying to make is that science is black or white, either 100% infallible Truth from the beginning of time, or worthless garbage that isn't even remotely right. But science doesn't work like that, there is such a thing as refining a theory based on new evidence. In fact, that is entirely what science is about. This new information is not contradictory of the existing theory, it only appears that way because you haven't made the effort to understand what the hell you're talking about.
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,519
- 595
- 126
No.. of course its contradictory... they say one thing and now its not true.
Evolution may be true. But THEIR theory is WRONG.
Of course being the expert in evolution that you are...you know that Darwin was a racist bastard who came up with his theories in order to justify why blacks were inferior to whites, right?
There has never been a consensus on the exact path from primate to human. You are acting like this discovery flies in the face of an established scientific theory. It doesn't.
This discovery is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory deals with how evolution occurs (ex: natural selection, mutations, etc...). The particular of evolution of a specific species is a totally different topic.
Wow, talk about a red herring. For your information evolutionary theory has progressed far beyond Darwin's original theories.
jman19
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2000
- 11,225
- 664
- 126
"All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said."
I don't think anyone has ever said we know the exact path of evolution, so I don't quite understand what your point is, GoPackGo.
Sadly, it seems the last defense of those who want to believe something that has no evidence is to try to cast as much doubt as possible on any theory that might be more plausible. Sad, really.
I don't think anyone has ever said we know the exact path of evolution, so I don't quite understand what your point is, GoPackGo.
Sadly, it seems the last defense of those who want to believe something that has no evidence is to try to cast as much doubt as possible on any theory that might be more plausible. Sad, really.
AnitaPeterson
Diamond Member
- Apr 24, 2001
- 6,021
- 547
- 126
Sadly, I think you're a bit too optimistic about the OP... Hopefully he's at the end of one of those stubby branches going nowhere, described in the text he linked.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
That is just because you do not understand science.
We do know that evolution is happening,we can see it happenin, if it was not then there would be only one strain of bacteria and one form of anti-bacterial tratment.
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution but time, given the billions or years that man had to become something, we became this but, this is wha you paint the rings around, we became this. and we're complicated so surely gawd must have done this becaus nature in itself isn't capable of doing extra ordinay things.
You fail on tws accounts, anything can happen given enough time and the right environment, as proven with the experiments with the primordial soup, spontaneous creation of RNA and in the end DNA has been proven though experiments to occur.
If science was infallible then it would be religion and not science, that is the very difference, you don't try the core of your faith against anything, science is testable, falsifiable andd if one thien proves to be wrong, then it's not assumed to just wrong, the scientific theory changes instead.
In faith, that which does not fit is just dismissed.
Long post i know, but someon had to tell the fool about it.
you clearly didn't know the theory of evolution well enough. This hasn't proven anything wrong.
LOL
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,519
- 595
- 126
Here is an article to support your claim
Link
So when a scientist creates life from nothing are those scientists not that lifes "god"?
Have they not the power to both create and destroy?
In fact aren't they proving the possiblity of "creation"?
In comparison aren't scientists a "higher being"?
What if the universe truly is just sitting on some guys desk...in a science lab?
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,519
- 595
- 126
A quote from "The Descent of Man", in a chapter called "The Races of Man.", in which Darwin wrote:
"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (1874, p. 178).
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
So fucking what?
You are saying that the evolutionary theory is wrong and you know what, all that other evidence does is to make it more correct, it can't be proven wrong.
You don't get how this works, at all, do you?
And i'm in fucking Kabul teaching you how things work in grade school.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Besides it's based on history, not anthropology nor biology AND it's factually incorrect (yes, even Darwin was wrong at times when he stepped out of his boundaries).
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
As i see it , religion is not nearly as benign as he portrays it. in a society where 95% are believers you'd wonder why they are scared, this is heir test and the sooner they die they go to heaven. Right?
yet they are scared little twits, the lot of them, you know why, they learned fear from their parents.
Pure trolling flamebait and naught but. Points to screech for showing how this article uses some rather dated and quaint, simplified theories of human evolution that haven't been in the scientific arena for half a century or more...
DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
I hate it too, when people say that I don't understand religion. They act like I have to go to Seminary, have a degree in religious studies and go to church every Sunday to get it. That's not education. That's indoctrination.
Besides, you don't have to nitpick in order to make religious arguments look silly. You can do it at every level. But there's really no point going beyond a basic empirical analysis: show me proof there's a god. You don't have any? Well fuck off then.
Kwaipie's take on religion isn't precisely how I'd put it, but he's not pulling it out of his ass either.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
I was raised the way the Jesus campers raise their children, only i was raised Catholic and not Evangelical.
I know everything there is to know about the Christian faith, how evangelicals pick and choose from both the old and new testament but mostly from Paul who just like Mohammed had his sessions talking to God (Jesus in Pauls case and Allah in Mohammeds case, Jesus being one with the three in the trinity and Allah being Abrahams god also would make them the same, good luck trying to tell them that though).
I've grown to despise religious people because they can't just leave me alone, they need to proclaim their faith as often as possible even though that is the opposite of what Jesus told them to do (pray in silence and alone) yet i find it in signatures here, people are coming to my doorstep, there are huge crosses on every church and they are plentiful.
Kwaipie does have a point.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Either
1. The OP is a troll
2. The OP should look into a religion for certainty because science looks for the best answer that fits and predicts the observed data.
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
You posted an entire thead based on what you knew is flame bait, then you fan the flames with your responses?
Not that i don't appreciate your effort though.
What entire thread are you speaking of?
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter