Evolution? How?

The evidence for a dynamic earth with mobile landmasses and depositional basins and highlands etc, is indesputable.Only if everything has to be consistent with Genesis are you required to blindly ignore facts and evidence.

Set, nowadays the larger Universities have opted for bogus programs of "interdisciplinary studies" wherein kids are fed a watered-down program of "bioenvironmental or geoenviromental" science. The univesrities are producing an entire generation of partially trained semi illiterates who are less than employable at industrial levels, usually working for environmnetal companies or governmental agencies as environmental "scientists"

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

And what may I ask, RR was the point of that graph? Hm? You sure don't belong in a scientific establishment, because they at least explain their graphs, state how they obtained the data and what specifically it represents. They make them very clear as to their purpose and why they're there.

Maybe Rex likes to show that God is above Evolution on the graph. So, if we follow that trend in uselessness, here's another one to consider...

http://www.google.com/trends?q=creation%2C+evolution%2C+god%2C+sex&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

0 Replies

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster convinced me to convert when they provided this incontrovertible evidence of the inverse relation between global warming and the number of pirates . . .

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

The CFSM is more à propos than one might realize. They have written letters to the Dover, Pa, school board, to the Ohio Department of Education, to the Kansas Board of Education and a host of others, insisting that the doctrines of the CFSM be included in school curricula if "intelligent design" is going to be taught. Given that the CFSM's view of the afterlife is hookers and beer, i consider that a salutary program.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=creation%2C+evolution%2C+god%2C+sex&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

I have never seen a funnier graph in all my life. Sex just completely dwarfs the others so darned much. All those horny male teenagers... Laughing

P.S. Notice how all the cities shown below are French?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=creation%2C+evolution%2C+god%2C+sex&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

I have never seen a funnier graph in all my life. Sex just completely dwarfs the others so darned much. All those horny male teenagers...

P.S. Notice how all the cities shown below are French?

I know, it's pretty funny. It's hard to find a word that is more searched than "sex", although "naked" at least shows up on the charts Smile

0 Replies

At Google, a search for the word "sex" yielded 759,000,000 results in .11 seconds. A search for the word "god" yielded 555,000,000 results in .55 seconds. A search for the word "naked," however, only yielded 130,000,000 results in .44. Therefore, i conclude that sex and nudity (23,700,000 results in .57 seconds) are only slightly more popular than god, but leap to mind much more quickly than god.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

That whole reply was one big strawman, so I'll not address it point by point.
I've never asserted 'my beliefs' are the correct ones, or even that there are correct beliefs.
It is you that believes in an immutable manual for human existence not I.

Yes I am smarter than most, what of it? Yes, it is plain to me that many have poor reasoning skills and are very gullible. Do you dispute this?
Since you answered no to both questions, surely you don't.
What we have is reason and logic. we can either work with them or against them, but only one way leads to true conclusions.

The difference is that your use of 'reason' and 'logic' has led you to the conclusion that you are god.

I think most would agree that conclusion is not reasonable or logical, so any other use of the terms by you is extremely suspect.

0 Replies

What's so popular about France, though?

http://www.google.com/trends?q=...geo=all&date=all

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl
Quote:
My earlier point was that nearly every area of Earth shows evidence of having been undersea. And that is exactly what you would expect if there had been a worldwide flood, is it not?
Only if viewed from an extremely simplistic manner that ignores physics, geography, geological processes and a whole passel of other rules that we respect.

I like your stealth correlation statements like
"In order to be consistent with Genesis , for example". I am pleased that many of us dont have to remain cuffed in myth before being able to interpret the world. You do have a problem when everything you observe must be "consistent with Genesis".Thats illogical and a waste of our time.

Before interpreting data, do you make the assumption that it must fit into the evolutionary story somewhere along with other inferences that have been drawn from earlier data?

0 Replies

Ooo, Ooo . . . i can answer that one for FM . . .

No.

0 Replies

What he said.
None of it starts with preconceived notions. (Or at least it should not begin thus)

The only preconceived notions allowed are quite fundamental

1 If we wish to find fossils, we go to sedimentary deposits or ignimbrite sediments

2 If we are searching for similitude, we go to formations mapped as of the age

3 No matter what's found, its all generally important but not worth any conclusions till someone studies the bejeezus out of it.

4 All the rest follows rules of aystematics, not anything preconceived. We save that for the Creationists who are, generally bound by their "being consistent with Genesis" (your gonna hate yourself for using that phrase)

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

What he said.
None of it starts with preconceived notions. (Or at least it should not begin thus)

The only preconceived notions allowed are quite fundamental

1 If we wish to find fossils, we go to sedimentary deposits or ignimbrite sediments

2 If we are searching for similitude, we go to formations mapped as of the age

3 No matter what's found, its all generally important but not worth any conclusions till someone studies the bejeezus out of it.

4 All the rest follows rules of aystematics, not anything preconceived. We save that for the Creationists who are, generally bound by their "being consistent with Genesis" (your gonna hate yourself for using that phrase)

Interesting quote here

Quote:

Paleontologist Gen Suwa was walking across the pebble-covered desert of north-central Ethiopia under the searing midday sun, peering carefully around him for ancient bones. Then he saw it: the telltale gleam of a fossil tooth partially exposed on the rocky ground. "I knew immediately that it was a hominid tooth," says the University of Tokyo scientist, "and one of the oldest ever found."

Now I hope you'll forgive me if I think it sounds like , if not a preconceived notion, perhaps a 'very hasty conclusion' was formed? Can we say that?

This kind of thing is not difficult to find in reading about discoveries of various fossils. One of my favorites was a quote from Don Johanson. I wish I still had the link to it.

You can't easily convince me that folks who approach science with the 'evolution is a fact' mentality do not approach each new find with the assumption that it must fit into the evolutionary framework.

Also the phrase about something being consistent with Genesis is not problematic at all. I cited evidence which matches predictions which would be consistent with the Flood story. Much in the same way that you might say you believe that some evidence you are citing is consistent with evolution.

0 Replies

Your quote is from a Time magazine article, dated 1994, the full text of which can be read here.

Your remarks ignore that Mr. Suwa was a part of a team which had been studying that area since 1992. The article again:

Quote:

He and his colleagues report in the current Nature that the archaic molar, along with other fossils they found in the area on expeditions in 1992 and 1993, belong to a previously unknown species.

Therefore, it is entirely reasonable that Mr. Suwa, as an expert in his field, can recognize a human tooth, even at a distance. It is also entirely reasonable the Mr. Suwa, having studied the area in expeditions in 1992 and 1993, had already established the age of the exposed area which they were studying.

I know it is convenient to your thesis to cherry-pick statements such as tis, to engage in "quote mining." That does not axiomatically make your statement reasonable, however.

0 Replies

real, The observations of evolution by scientists is so obvious, their conclusion would be the same whether they knew about "evolution" before-hand. They would call it "a process of development or chaznge." Oh, gee, that's the definition of "evolution."

0 Replies

I should also note that, although not a technical journal, Time magazine's article was very careful to use qualifying statements throughout.

Quote:

While the evolutionary story is still in some doubt, there is no question about the fossils' antiquity. Ancient bones cannot be dated directly, but geochronologists proceed by determining the age of nearby rocks. It also helps if the fossils have lain undisturbed since they were buried. In this case, the ramidus bones could not have been better placed: they were enclosed in sedimentary rock that was neatly sandwiched between layers of volcanic ash, which contains radioactive isotopes that make material easy to date. The volcanic layer just beneath the fossils turned out to be about 4.4 million years old. That jibes perfectly with the ages of other fossil animals found, which were already known from analysis of other sites.

An article intended to be read by laymen, it is well written and carefully worded.

Scientists are debating whether the new hominid is really the common ancestor of both humans and apes . . .

Most experts assume ramidus walked on two legs, as Lucy did, but the evidence is skimpy and indirect.

It appears ramidus may have lived not on the savannah, however, but in some sort of forest. (emphasis added)

The researchers found very few bones from below the neck, and those they found were in fragments; chew marks on the bones show that the hominids' carcasses were ravaged by carnivores. That makes it hard for anyone to be sure what these creatures looked like and how they walked.

The article also notes that there is a similarity to the teeth of chimpanzees, and there is note taken of speculation that ramidus might be a common ancestor of chimpanzees and of man.

But you never tire of playing these games, do you "real life?"

0 Replies

real, re your "consistent with the flood", I suggest you look at the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions.

If you knew anything at all about comparative anatomy you would know why he said he knew immediately it was a hominid tooth. Hominid teeth look different than primate teeth look different from ursine teeth looik different thanh canine teeth look different than feline teeth look different than cetacean teet, etc. After you look at a few thousand teeth, you can tell. For the same reason you can look at the head of a hominid thigh bone and tell that the creature who had that bone walked upright, because the shape of the head is different and the muscle attachment points (which leave traces on the bone) are different than those of primate knuckle-walker/brachiators. How do they know that? Comparative anatomy looking at the different structures of humans and primates. But you probably still think a tooth is just a tooth, don't you? Hah.

0 Replies

Desperately fighting tooth and nail to convince themselves that the mythology of the Old Testament is real history. Nitpicking at small gaps in scientific knowledge to protect the huge credibility gaps in the Bible. When in doubt, pass them off as magic. Back to David Copperfield is God.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You can't easily convince me that folks who approach science with the 'evolution is a fact' mentality do not approach each new find with the assumption that it must fit into the evolutionary framework.

You're nit picking again RL. Of course we all approach things with pre-conceived ideas. But that doesn't mean that we are incapable of determining when something doesn't fit the pre-conceived model.

For example, when an archeologist sees a bone in the field, he has a pre-conceived idea that he's looking at something real, and not a hologram, first of all. He doesn't go over and poke with his finger to make sure it's solid. He also has the pre-conceived idea that he's looking at something natural and not a plastic model buried by Steven Speilberg's special effects crew when filming the last movie. He also has the pre-conceived idea that what he finds it probably going to fit into the only available theory which explains natural biology; evolution.

Human beings don't approach life, or science, by discarding all the accumulated knowledge of their lives and looking at things like they were newborn. But having pre-conceived ideas doesn't mean that we can't see when something doesn't fit, or when something fits a better model. The theory of evolution developed for exactly that reason; Darwin proposed a model which better explained the evidence, so science adopted that model as the standard. And it remains the standard to this day.

As Farmerman has pointed out, every piece of evidence is painstakingly checked to make sure its physical characteristics fit into the model. So far, everything fits into the basic model to a high degree of detail. And most importantly NOTHING contradicts the model.

The model you are using as a pre-conceived notion is poofism, and that's fine, magic can explain anything. But it sure as hell isn't a valid scientific option, so scientists don't use it.

0 Replies

Evolution .How?

Suppose life is all the same in some way and there are no mutations by natural selection and the process of it.

It is changing environments and those mould the life form. The mutations,and I would guess we are all mutations in some way,simply fit better and the female of the good-fit species may have a mysterious way of selecting the correct mutation from the 200,000,000 possibilities. It is more I gather with prize bulls.

I'll bet you never thought of the possibilty of that after they've had six double gins and a pint of lager.

Those species where the female lays a lot of eggs get thinned out later like in the famous turtle rush to the sea which I'm sure everyone has seen which saves me having to describe it and prevents this post going on any longer that is absulutely necessary for the purpose of raising a simple possibilty for the consideration of fellow threaders.

You're the experts- is that a possibility?

A sort of series of sieves of unimaginable height, as Darwin would have said, on the environmental shaking table for an unimaginable length of time. What comes out of the bottom is what makes it through all the holes which are not all perfectly round.

0 Replies

Tanzanian monkey goes up a notch

By Rebecca Morelle
BBC News science reporter

Scientists have described a new genus of monkey - the first for 83 years.

The Rungwecebus kipunji sports a distinctive Mohawk stripe of hair, and is found in Tanzania, Africa.

The monkey, first described from photographs last year, was originally thought to be a new species but tests reveal it is even more special.

The full story can be found here.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know