Yet more proof that scientists dont know shit.
Like the old philosopher's joke goes, its turtles all the way down....
Except when it applies to the evolutionary theory of man.
Or as Grandmaster Flash would advise against such linear thought.... and if you get hooked, baby, it's nobody else's fault, so.... DONT DO IT!
Rang dang diggedy dang di dang
story
39 comments:
Hmmm..scientists revise theory based on new evidence! I believe that's the way science is supposed to work. That's the good thing about science. When was the last time religion did that? You seem to be using that to reject science in favor of .. what, exactly?
But there was a consensus.
and why in your eyes isnt Leakey but a money grubbing skeptic?
Its good to see you finally coming around, and that The Aurora is having a positive impact on you.
ummm yeah maybe you don't understand the concept of religion.
It's not science and it's not supposed to change. It's faith. You either believe it or you don't.
I don't.
As Robert Ingersoll said: "Everything that really happened testifies against the supernatural."
So now some scientists publish an article in Nature saying that rather than homo habilis evolving into homo erectus, that both may have evolved from a common ancestor. Other scientists may disagree and critique the article. Notice that none of them think that homo sapiens was created as is 6000 years ago.
The point that I was trying to make if you didnt catch it in my first sentence once again is that scientists dont know shit. They dont know shit about global warming they dont know shit about evolution, and yet suckers such as yourself believe the hype whereas I await the sequel.
Any scientist will admit that the area of what we don't know is larger than the area of what is known. But science has a method for ascertaining truth or at least probable truth. Religion just makes shit up.
once again, proving the authors of this blog did not pay attention in their high school science classes and have no grasp of the scientific method.
your commentary in this area is quite entertaining. please keep it coming for mine and gary's amusement.
You know you're right, i really didn't pay attention in highschool so maybe you could just answer a couple of questions for me. I mean since it's all very elementary to you....
If evolution was true wouldn't we have definitive proof in the fossil record of millions of species that have evolved from one to another?
I mean how can it be that we can find dinosaur bones but we can't find the fossil of the animal that used to be a beaver? or a dog? or a cat?
Seriously how many dogs are there in the world? What did they used to be?
Where are the fossils of the species that evolved into dogs????
That one should be pretty common right? So where are those fossils?
Now if you don't have any fossils of the animal that became a dog then how can you tell me that the dog evolved from some other species?
Please explain how your belief in darwinism is different than others belief in a supreme creator.
you guys are joking, right?
which guys?
I'm not joking.
Please explain how your belief in darwinism is different than others belief in a supreme creator."
There is no difference. Well besides that On the Origin of Species has been thoroughly debunked while the Bible has proven to have at least some semblance of historical accuracy.
Rhino, there are fossils showing the evolution of species. Some are better documented than others--quite a lot of transitional fossils of horses or so I've read. Human ancestors as well, as your original article shows. Homo erectus, homo habilis, etc.
How is belief in "Darwinism" different from belief in a Supreme Creator? Simple, one is based on a body of evidence, admittedly incomplete, and the other is based, as you said, on faith, that is to say no evidence at all.
In one sense I don't care what people choose to believe. "Turtles all the way down"--fine. The problem with God as an explanation is that it doesn't actually explain anything.
Myself, I am a militant agnostic: I don't know and neither do you.
there are fossils showing the evolution from one species to another?
Please cite examples.
Like what did the horse used to be? what was the species? was it a bird? was it a fish? what was it?
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
(with pictures)
Thanks gary. I like pictures.
I still don't get it though.
It was a horse that became a bigger horse?
Isn't that the same species?
I believe the pictures represent different species, in that they wouldn't be able to mate with each other. Look, I'm not an expert on the evolution of the horse. There are books on the subject, by actual scientists, if you are interested.
So horses evoved from dog like animals? then once again to repaeat Rhino's query.... what up with dogs? did they evolve from horse-like animals?
... and the assumption that growing in size is an evolutionary trait is quite frankly simple minded wrong and grasping for straws.
Apparently Norwegians are now the tallest race, does that mean that they evolved from Americans who were previously the tallest?
No, dogs evolved from smaller mouse-like animals. Or something.
I belive Norwegians migrated from Venus after it got too hot due from global warming.
Any other questions?
Look, if you want to learn more about a scientific field, here's a thought. Go to the internet or the library. Find webpages or books by trained scientists working in that field, and do some reading.
Ignorance is not evidence. You seem to saying, I don't know anything about evolution so I don't believe in it.
Actually thats not what we are saying in fact the exact opposite.
You feel like an idiot becuz we called you out on your bs link that states that horses have evolved from smaller horses, so you call us ignorant. Well Kirstie Alley used to be skinny... whats your point. Thats not evolution thats dietary.
We are saying that we know more than you, that you have a blind religious like faith in scientists that have been proven wrong over and over again and that you are more the zealot than we but you call it science and once again and most alarming, like most organized religions you must trash the oppostiton to make yourself feel better about yourself.
Science is a method. A method that has resulted in an increase in human knowledge over the centuries, as well as technological progress. The scientific method also provides a means of correcting its claims and proving, refining, or falsifying them.
Religion is based, as you said, on sheer faith. Much of it is demonstrably untrue (the earth isn't 6000 years old) and the rest of it is unproven and unprobable.
I am assuming that in a lot of what you say that you are just pretending to be stupid, as no one could be that stupid in real life. But then maybe I'm wrong
Gary, why is it stupid to not believe in evolution?
because there's a consensus in the scientific community?
Is that all it takes to convince you?
just a majority? or does it have to be a super majority?
baahhh baaahhh
See heres where you as always get it wrong. Its always black and white with you.
Noone is saying that "religion" is better than "science" or that the earth is "only 6000 years old".
What I am saying is that on the subject of evolution your "centuries" of science havent proven a thing, I say this not because Im a bible thumper or believe in creationism but rather ...
because they havent proven anything.
Best guesses dont cut it with me, especially when entire political movements are built around them.
The only thing that you have proven is that you do not understand the scientific method.
Zing, you got me, Im stupid. That seems to be a common rebuttal from you, and as always incorrect.
... but lets suppose that I dont understand the scientific method like all you smarty pants, as I too like Rhino didnt pay all that much attention in school. Its always just come naturally to me, but its not so much me as its the gift.
It doesnt change the fact that there is no known observable empirical or measurable proof of evolution. None.
It is only hypothesis, and thats not good enough for me and nor should it be for you if you are as appreciative of the sm as you claim to be.
... or is it that you are just a sheep to the consensus? which by its very defintion is the anithesis of scientific discovery.
There are proofs of mathematical theorems. In the natural world there is only evidence, and there is a lot of evidence supporting the theory, not hypothesis, of evolution. Your reason for rejecting it seems to be that scientists don't know everything, and are sometimes wrong. But then they know more than you (or me) at least about their field of study, and you are sometimes wrong too. Actually more the rule than the exception.
I am certain that NO amount of evidence would lead you to accept evolution (or global warming) and that is why I can say your opinion is not based on science.
Do you have, at least, an alternative scientific theory to evolution? I didn't think so.
And on the subject of empirical evidence, shouldn't there be TONS of it? I mean we have so many species of animals shouldn't we have at least... i dunno.... a thousand examples in the fossil record? How about 500? I mean shouldn't there be examples of the thing that used to be a fish but then developed lungs? And wouldn't it be that there would be like a million years worth of them? you know at first they have some sort of hybrid lungs that don't really breath air but then they get a little bigger and eventually they can breath air and they start to flop around on the beach and eventually grow legs or something?
You see this would take millions of years so there should be some fossils at every stage shouldn't there? unless you're telling me that they were swimming along one day and the next day they had fully developed lungs and legs and they left the water???
I hope you're not saying that because that sounds a lot like creationism and i wouldn't want to have to call you a right wing religious nutball!!!
There is alot of evidence?
No there is not. In fact Im pretty sure theres is, as I mentioned earlier.... NONE.
... and Im glad you brought up global warming bcuz its funny how your argument for evolution is the exact opposite of your argument for man made global warming.
Make up your mind dude. Liberals like you remind me of the old Groucho Marx line....
"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others."
So if there's no other scientific explanation then evolution must be right? Maybe creationism is right, or maybe we just don't know.
I'm sure darwin was a relatively smart guy but that doesn't mean his theory has to be correct does it?
Maybe we would have the answer already if scientists were still looking instead of just buying into the consensus........baaaa baaaaa
How is my argument for evolution the exact opposite of my argument for global warming? Both are based on a scientific consensus, as you have pointed out.
And Rhino, as for the thousands of fossils you ask for--they exist. You're not familiar with them because you haven't examined the evidence.
Donkey, ignoring the evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence. There is fossil evidence, genetic evidence, and more.
my xenu, no matter how many times we have to explain the scientific method and related definitions, you guys just don't get it!
a hypothesis is a testable proposition. at one point, yes, evolution was a hypothesis.
a theory evolves from a hypothesis after it has been tested over and over again.
evolution is a theory.
a theory can also be revised when new evidence contradicts all or part of it.
that is the beauty of science--we use new knowledge to build upon or refute old explanations.
and this is precisely how believing in a scientific theory is different than believing in the divinity of jesus, ra, or some other make believe nonsense: mystical beliefs are not open to revision.
it's ironic that xian fundamentalists and ID'ers like to accuse nonbelievers of being incapable of independent thought, when they are the ones blindly accepting the precepts of the bible!
it would be funny if it weren't so sad.
i feel sorry for you guys, so here are some great argument templates for you.
no need to thank me.
When Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, science knew nothing about genetics. The DNA code was discovered later. Now, the theory of evolution would predict that when that code was eventually decoded, the DNA code of humans would be similar to that of apes and chimps, and less similar to that of dogs and cats, and even less similar to that of frogs. If that were found not to be the case then evolution would have been disproven. But guess what, the prediction was verified.
The genetic evidence is pretty much the proof you keep asking for, on top of the strong evidence of the fossil record.
But you don't believe in evolution because.. why exactly?
"scientists revise theory based on new evidence! I believe that's the way science is supposed to work."
The article I linked shatters the consensus of the lienar evolutionary pattern of man and you know it so you embrace the skeptic as not to make a further fool out of yourself so that you can continue to bash religion.
But regarding AGW you dismiss skeptics as Exxon whores and ignore the evidence of volcanic activity, carbon sinks, solar irradiance, water evaporation historical warming cooling trends etc bcuz it doesnt fit your political ideology of blaming mankind in general and America specifically.
You argue out of both sides of your ass, because its not about science with you its about hiding under the cloak of consensus when it fits and I call that cowardice of conviction.
Ignoring the insults and global warming for the moment, evolution of man or horses, is not linear. It's more like a tree with many branches. The article you cited actually supports evolution but argues that homo habilis and homo erectus shared a common ancestor which branched out into the two homos. So to speak.
donkey, you just reinforced the idea you have no idea what you're talking about!
the article doesn't "shatter" anything except the idea that erectus evolved from habilus. in fact, the article *supports* evolution, and dr. leakey would certainly tell you the same.
"The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years"
What dont you understand? What the consensus thought of evolution was wrong. Get it? My point stands that scientists by and large dont know shit and that evolution has to date remained unproven.
Ebony did not evolve from Ivory, they lived side by side on my piana keyboard or Lord why cant we....
Case fucking closed.
.... that gave me a song idea
Is it just possible that maybe it's you that doesn't know shit?
OK, just asking.
Post a Comment