5/10/2005: Dinosaur tracks

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jaguar

I said it in the above thread, I don't give a fuck what people believe but I'm sick to the teeth of them trying to thrust their wacky fucking views on everyone else. I mean just look at OnyxCougar 2 posts above trying to claim that a scientific theory is religion for fucks sake.

We've had this discussion on the EvC thread. A religion as defined is a set of beliefs that cannot be proven. Therefore the origins portion of the evolutionary theory is a relgion.

These people and this battle are in danger of becoming the defining cultural struggle of the 21st century, the rational verses the religious.

I noticed the inference that if you're religious you can't be rational. That's simply not true.

it's not about love thy neighbour it's about trying to stop thy neighbour marrying his same-sex partner or forcing my religion down the throats of thy neighbour's son in public-funded schools or stopping thy neighbour having an abortion.

I want it noted here that I don't want to stop gay marriage. I don't want to throw ANY religion (including humanism) down any child's throat in school. I don't want to stop your neighbor having an abortion. Those are all things (marriage and abortion) I firmly believe the persons in question should choose, and have the right to do.

As far as I and many others are concerned there is no more place for this shit in politics than there is sharia law or any other religious code.

I agree. 100%

While your teacher might've gone a little far lookout why in hell should time be given in a classroom to anything other than scientific theory?. Should the class on the solar system be prefaced with - 'this is only a scientific theory, some people think the earth is a disk that sits on the back of four elephants that in turn stand on a gigantic turtle swimming though space'? Why not? Comes from the teachers of another fucking huge religion.

Why do you have to talk about origins at all? Literal Creationists (generally) are not against science. Not at all. Repeatable, observable science SHOULD be taught to every school age child. Speculation and guesswork and exegesis should NOT.

If you give time to humanism, it's only fair and right that you give time to christianity, wicca, hinduism, buddhism, and other creation stories. Otherwise leave them ALL out. Including evolutionary origins.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by hot_pastrami

It is an important distinction that science will always take ALL evidence into account to reach conclusions, and alter those conclusions if new evidence gives them reason to; whereas religion holds tight to all beliefs, no matter now many facts may completely contradict them.

That is patently untrue and I defer you to the scientists at AiG who are just as qualified as the secular scientists, and hold a completely different viewpoint.

http://www.answersingenesis.org

And I don't want to rehash this all here. It's been done to death. I stand by the EvC thread, and if you want to rejoin that old argument there, have at it.

(However, your post DOES confirm the notion that even though scientists call it a theory, they put it forth and believe it is a fact. All the people who posted here and said "it's just a theory" should take note. They don't posit it as a theory, they posit it as a fact. I have a problem with that.)

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Not at all. People need a model to live by. Fictional or not is the question, not whether it was needed at one point or another.

It's just that some people eventually evolve cognitively to the point of being able to realize that and to differentiate.

Think again.

If Genesis is not literal truth, then the bible can't be trusted, sin happened before Adam and Eve, and therefore, when Jesus referred to Genesis, he was quoting an allgorial story, meaning you can't trust him either, and if he is NOT who he says was, then God isn't who he said HE was, and there is no point to three of the world's major religions.

Radiometric dating is inaccurate. The CREATOR of radiometric dating even says it is wildly inaccurate.

The Geological column does not exist anywhere but textbooks.

Scientists date layers of rock by fossils found there and date fossils by layers of rock they are found in. ??

There are evidences of a young earth that scientists can't disprove.

It all hinges on what your starting bias is.....

[jaguar]

A religion as defined is a set of beliefs that cannot be proven. Therefore the origins portion of the evolutionary theory is a relgion.

You're playing semantics. Prove is a very strong word. Look at mathamatics, just because 1+1 = 2 seems logical enough doesn't mean you've proven it. You cannot, ever 'prove' evolutionary theory in relation to the development humans, not in a way that would satisfy the likes of you. We have an ever-more-complete fossil tree with ever fewer gaps showing the gradual development of hundreds of species, including humans. This is part of the emperical evidence that makes evolutionary theory in the descent of humans a theory, not religion. It's based on analysis of the evidence, if a better theory is developed tomorrow so be it, science will accept it. There is however, no evidence that will convince people like you to change their minds. That is why evolutionary development of humans and other species is not religion. And creationism is. It's also why one should be taught in schools, along side other theories like the big bang, particle physics, quantum mechanics etc. It is put forward as fact because it is the best theory, if the theory changed, what is put forward would change. It would still be put forward as fact. Why do you find that so hard to accept?

Also: Answers in Genisis is full of shit. It's not linked to by one reputable scientific site, not just because it isn't scientific but because it tends to quote scientists and papers out of context to help makes its points. It's not run by qualified scientists but by a creationists out to prove an agenda by fudging the truth and building straw men.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

If Genesis is not literal truth, then the bible can't be trusted, sin happened before Adam and Eve, and therefore, when Jesus referred to Genesis, he was quoting an allgorial story, meaning you can't trust him either, and if he is NOT who he says was, then God isn't who he said HE was, and there is no point to three of the world's major religions.

Exactly, except for the whole no point thing. Religion serves a purpose, the same purpose as law. Social control.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

The CREATOR of radiometric dating even says it is wildly inaccurate.

Cite please. And considering the evolution of technology since RCD was developed make sure he's talking about the new gear.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

The Geological column does not exist anywhere but textbooks.

I'm sure we can tie this in with RCD above.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Scientists date layers of rock by fossils found there and date fossils by layers of rock they are found in. ??

RCD, again...

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

There are evidences of a young earth that scientists can't disprove.

Cite please and remember that you can't disprove anything, you can only show a lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

It all hinges on what your starting bias is.....

And it helps to be biased towards reality, wouldn't you think?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jaguar

You're playing semantics.

No I'm not. Read the EvC thread again.

Prove is a very strong word. Look at mathamatics, just because 1+1 = 2 seems logical enough doesn't mean you've proven it. You cannot, ever 'prove' evolutionary theory in relation to the development humans, not in a way that would satisfy the likes of you.

You mean, with proof? No. You can't prove it to satisfy the likes of me. Because it is unprovable. You have no evidence, only conjecture, unsubstatiated claims and incomplete fragments of fossils that in some cases (Lucy) the bones were found miles away from each other.

Is any of that proof? Not to me, and it shouldn't be for you, either.

We have an ever-more-complete fossil tree with ever fewer gaps showing the gradual development of hundreds of species, including humans.

Wrong again. We have known evidence of faked fossils, we have incomplete skeletons with bones found miles from each other, slapped together and called "proof". We have Haegel's drawing, still used in textbooks today, which were proven to be fraudulent, and for which he was censured for.

There have been fakes and frauds on both sides of this argument, no one is above independant verification. The FACT is that evolutionary origins CANNOT be proven, in the way the scientific method states it must be proven to be fact. You can guess, you can try to piece together the way you think it may have happened, but it cannot be proven. There is no silver bullet piece of evidence, jag, there just ISN'T.

At the Scopes trial, it went completely the opposite of the way it was depicted in "Inherit the Wind" Read the court transcripts. I did.

This is part of the emperical evidence that makes evolutionary theory in the descent of humans a theory, not religion. It's based on analysis of the evidence, if a better theory is developed tomorrow so be it, science will accept it.

They say that, but it's not true. It's been proven scientifically that layers of rock like what has been observed all over the world and supposedly taken millions of years can be laid down in 20. It's been proven that mutations occur much faster than originally thought, it doesn't take millions of years. It's also been proven over and over again that species cannot mutate the way they would have had to do it the way evolution says they did, because WHOLE systems would have had to mutate at the same time for the creature to live, and that isn't how geneticists say it works.

There is however, no evidence that will convince people like you to change their minds.

That's right, because there IS no evidence. Show me the money.

That is why evolutionary development of humans and other species is not religion. And creationism is.

If you can't prove it, it's a belief. A set of unprovable beliefs is a relgion.

It's also why one should be taught in schools, along side other theories like the big bang,

also a theory, not provable in the slightest

particle physics, quantum mechanics etc. It is put forward as fact because it is the best theory, if the theory changed, what is put forward would change. It would still be put forward as fact. Why do you find that so hard to accept?

Because it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN WRONG and HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.

Also: Answers in Genisis is full of shit. It's not linked to by one reputable scientific site, not just because it isn't scientific

oh bullshit it's not scientific.

but because it tends to quote scientists and papers out of context to help makes its points.

obviously you have not seriously looked at the site. in fact it has MANY scientific speakers and debate it quotes in FULL and still manages to prove evolution has gaping holes in it.

It's not run by qualified scientists

they have degrees from major universities from all over the world in astrophysics, geology, astronomy, paleontology, just about every -ology you can think of. What exactly makes them not qualified?

but by a creationists out to prove an agenda by fudging the truth and building straw men.

Yes, they are out to prove evolution is full of crap. And they have the ssame credentials secular scientists do.

Scientists who come out with the fact they are creationist are blacklisted, and in fact, there are reports that they are not allowed to even publish if it does not fall in line with evolutionist theory. Many times, grants are withheld if a scientist comes out as Creationist. No wonder nothing is linked off of other sites, but jag, that doesn't make it less correct.

If I was the most evolutionary thinker in the world, and I'm not linked by another site with different views, does that mean I'm wrong? Of course not. That's a dumb criteria.

You're not thinking.

[lumberjim]

OC, why do you keep having this argument in THIS thread? why don;t you take it over to that Evolution vs. Creationism thread we had a while back?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Exactly, except for the whole no point thing. Religion serves a purpose, the same purpose as law. Social control.

I agree, organized relgion does serve that purpose. But someone with half a brain that thinks even remotely linearly cannot believe the bible is made up and still believe in Jesus' part in it as being real.

RCD articles:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

semi-technical (and a non AiG website): http://trueorigin.org/dating.asp

technical (PDF): http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home...4n2_Crinum.pdf

Links to lots more RMD sites, most AiG, some offsite links, from many sources and different scientists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...faq/dating.asp

And it helps to be biased towards reality, wouldn't you think?

Absolutely agree!

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

OC, why do you keep having this argument in THIS thread? why don;t you take it over to that Evolution vs. Creationism thread we had a while back?

*I* have already suggested it like 4 times and they aren't moving it to that thread. Why point *me* out? Why not ask Jag and TS and everyone else?

[lumberjim]

actually, i think it was 5. and i thought you'd pick up on the sarcasm. guess you're too fired up right now about The Lord. That's okay. it happens. zeal seems to obscure many senses including humor.

[smoothmoniker]

ARRRRGHHHH!!!!!!!!

Ok, I've held out for as long as I can. Look, my evangelical conservative creds run as deep as anybody here, but pushing intelligent design into the science curriculum is wrong.

wrong, wrong, wrong.

Can I say it any plainer? This is why - the real question at stake here is Theism vs. Naturalism, and that's not a question for a science class, it's a question for a philosophy class. Science is a methodology for accumulating and correllating natural data; of course it starts with a presumption of naturalism. It has to! To say that science should present non-natural conclusions is like saying that 2+2=Orange. It's not that Orange is untrue, it's just that it's an inappropriate answer to the question.

Intelligent design is a schema for answering the why question - the scientific process answers the how question. So here's the compromise. Take creationism out of the science curriculum, but let the discussion of theism, and it's twin Intelligent Design, take place in the philosophy curriculum. It belongs there.

-sm

[Clodfobble]

I wish they would start offering philosophy in high school. You'd end up with a lot fewer college students having their minds blown by Descartes.

[jaguar]

Because it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN WRONG and HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED.

Er. No. It hasen't. Maybe is crazy-topsy-turvy creationist world is has but here in reality, the modern scientific community, it hasn't. The conspiricy talk to amusing too. You've just stated some fairly amusing stuff, I challenege you to back up one of those claims with a paper published in a reputable scientific journal. Not some wacky creationist one but a real scientific paper supporting one of those points that has been perr reviewed and published.

Lets have a closer look at AiG then shall we? Why not look at the top? Persident Ken Ham, who, according to his bio:

Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia.

Impressive! An undergrad degree from a second rate uni! Ken's writings demonstrate perfectly the kind of logical silliness the AiG is based on and OnyxCougar is so ready to accept without question:
Like this gem:

Ken Ham: Question: Remember being taught that coal formed slowly in swamps over millions of years? How can we say that coal is the result of Noah's Flood just thousands of years ago?

Answer: The theory that coal formed in swamps over millions of years just doesn't fit with the evidence. Peat swamps that we observe today are totally different in composition and texture from coal deposits. In these swamps we find mainly roots and a texture like mashed potatoes.

However, coal deposits have trees, bark and other material giving it a totally different texture.

In my homeland of Australia, many of the coal deposits consist largely of pine trees that don't grow in swamps. Some of these trees are enormous - many feet in diameter. And these trees are in coal deposits that are hundreds of feet thick.

The only explanation that fits what we observe in coal deposits is that enormous quantities of plant material, including massive trees, were washed into place. This would require a lot of force and a lot of water. The event of Noah's Flood makes sense of this evidence - and gives us the real answers!

Sounds convincing if you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Sadly Diluvial models of coal formation are inconsistent with a wide variety of observations, and can be dismissed as untenable. Criticisms of autochthonous models made by AiG and other creationists are based largely on factual errors, misleading statements, and failure to consider all data. Moreover, since there exists strong evidence for many autochthonous coals in the geologic record, and since peats in the modern world accumulate at rates less than or equal to about 5mm/yr (Diemont and Supardi 1987), the presence of numerous thick autochthonous coals is good evidence that the earth is older than YECs typically allow."

This is typical of AiG arguments, fudge a bit there, ignore something when it doesn't fit and claim that all of science is an evil conspiricy to keep you down. I could go on for pages but why bother? It's not needed, nothing will move those that cling to their silly misconceptions and lies and everyone else thinks they're worrying at worst and hilarious at best.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

actually, i think it was 5. and i thought you'd pick up on the sarcasm. guess you're too fired up right now about The Lord. That's okay. it happens. zeal seems to obscure many senses including humor.

No, I don't mind if people think I'm full of shit, but I have valid, solid reasons for my beliefs, not because I was indoctrinated in them, but because I looked and reserched lots of different points of views and made a personal decision on what's right for me.

Then people who are severely closed minded for whatever reason think that because I fall under one huge umbrella of a label that I'm an extremist fundie and call me intolerant, irrational and basically imply I'm a freaking idiot.

I'm tired of all the Christian bashing. I'm *not* stupid because I believe in Jesus' saving grace. I'm *not* intolerant of other people's rights and opinions. I'm *not* irrational.

Dammit!

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

ARRRRGHHHH!!!!!!!!

Ok, I've held out for as long as I can. Look, my evangelical conservative creds run as deep as anybody here, but pushing intelligent design into the science curriculum is wrong.

wrong, wrong, wrong.

Can I say it any plainer? This is why - the real question at stake here is Theism vs. Naturalism, and that's not a question for a science class, it's a question for a philosophy class. Science is a methodology for accumulating and correllating natural data; of course it starts with a presumption of naturalism. It has to! To say that science should present non-natural conclusions is like saying that 2+2=Orange. It's not that Orange is untrue, it's just that it's an inappropriate answer to the question.

Intelligent design is a schema for answering the why question - the scientific process answers the how question. So here's the compromise. Take creationism out of the science curriculum, but let the discussion of theism, and it's twin Intelligent Design, take place in the philosophy curriculum. It belongs there.

-sm

I AGREE!!! and take the evolutionary origins out too!!!