Science vs. Creationism

[BENTLEY]

Berlinski himself prefers to be known as a writer rather than as a scientist. Why would anybody take him seriously?

I can talk to heyhey and onebrow but you're only sticking your toe into the conversation to be a dou.che. Nice google of wikipedia. Your research on Berlinski is vast.

 

[One Brow]

Sorry that's the best I can do.

I understand your point, I am just accustomed to seeing the words used differently. Gravitational lensing would have been a prediction, not a separate hypothesis, in the language I am used to seeing. Do you see any difference between the prediction of a theory and a hypothesis, and if so, what would they be?

 

[One Brow]

I'm shaking my head. Did you read that? This evolutionist admits the lack of consensus but you're claiming it's case closed evidence - the "missing link." This evolutionist gives no answers - just a lot of we're-not-sures.

There is never any guarantee that any given fossil is ancestral to any other being, living or fossilized. The vast majority of populations die out. They are replaced by their cousins, descendants from closely-related, more-successful populations. Ultimately, the question is not whether any australopithecus is our ancestor. If we didn't descend from Lucy and her kin, we descend from a slightly different, undiscovered populations that greatly resembled them.

This is not case closed evidence, dude.

The case is never closed, and never will be. Science does not grant the ultimate answer. You can only get 99.99999999999999% confidence, giver or take a few degrees of magnitude.

hey this looks kinda human but also kinda like an ape - could it be? And then the imagination fills in the gaps. I'm oversimplifying, yes, but not much. People hear some scientist rattle off all this jargon and assume they know what they're talking about. Read this story:

Let's be clear on what that story does, and does not, call into question. It called into question the previously narrow limits that had been set upon early human diversity within a population. It did not call into question the ability of anthropologists to describe the additional features of a larger animal from a smaller part; that ability was *confirmed* by the finding. It did not call into question the basic lineage of men as apes.

I won't sacrifice my reason to be part of the majority.

To paraphrase Orac (the blogger), we need to keep open minds, but not so open that our brains fall out.

So far, we have discussed fossils. That's one line of evidence for evolution. This links adds 29 additional lines of evidence:

https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Did you guys hear about Francis Crick and his panspermia theory? It's pretty hilarious. But we're veering out of evolution and into intelligent design territory.

Actually, panspermia would be an abiogenesis hypothesis, having nothing to do with evolution.

 

[One Brow]

...speak for yourself, Brow! From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange.

Every feature that is common to the other apes (gibbon, orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee), humans have. That includes you.

Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution?

1) Evolution does not say species advance.
2) Any given adult orangutan, gorilla, or chimpanzee is stronger enough to literally tear the limbs from your body. They are very good at surviving in their natural habitats, and much better than humans at doing so.
3) Our ancestors fought, just like we do. We are the descendants of the victors.

The evidence is clear that belief in “ape-men” is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that—apes, or monkeys—not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human “kind,” not animal “kind.”

In multiple ways, humans show every sign of having common ancestry with apes.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

In another thread, perhaps on another day if you don't wish to have it now, I would enjoy having a discussion with you about this. For example, I don't think we mean "observation" in quite the same way, but I would be interested to hear what you mean, rather than assuming it, when you feel like discussing it.

Am I right in observing that you are not as interested as you made it sound in this post?

See post #333.

 

[MVP]

So he isn't allowed to doubt, or have questions that might be valid, because he chooses to identify himself as a writer? Seems awfully dogmatic.

Sure he can. Just why would anybody take any of those 0.14% scientists who do not agree with evolution seriously is beyond my understanding.

 

[MVP]

I can talk to heyhey and onebrow but you're only sticking your toe into the conversation to be a dou.che. Nice google of wikipedia. Your research on Berlinski is vast.

I could talk to if you would quote more reputable sources. If Berlinski is great for you than we have nothing to discuss.

 

[One Brow]

“If enough monkeys pecked away at typewriters long enough,” the argument of evolutionists goes, “they could eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare.” Up to now they felt safe enough passing out this “scientific” pronouncement. Who could disprove it? But now this straw that they have been grasping at for so long has been demolished.

Dr. William Bennett, a professor of physics at Yale University, specializes in designing computer programs to solve unusual scientific problems. He has applied the rules of probability to the typing monkeys, and programmed computers to simulate their pecking of the keys. The report in the New York “Times,” gives the computer’s verdict. Dr. Bennett calculates that “if a trillion monkeys were to type 10 randomly chosen characters a second it would take, on the average, more than a trillion times as long as the universe has been in existence just to produce the sentence: ‘To be or not to be, that is the question.’”

The answer from the computer is, “It is not to be.”

How much selection did Bennett apply to the problem? None, because it was hack-work. If, after every letter typed, you remove all the pages with mistypes and replace them with copies of the correctly typed versions, you'll have Shakespeare in no time at all, less than a thousand monkeys.

 

[LogGrad98]

Sure he can. Just why would anybody take any of those 0.14% scientists who do not agree with evolution seriously is beyond my understanding.

I guess if they ask questions that ring true it would be valid to take them seriously until you heard the answer to those questions. And as soon as we stop listening to those with dissenting opinions, regardless of the topic, then we stop really learning and progressing. Progress generally comes in asking the questions that others take for granted, imo. Generally the only realm where dissenters are actively ignored, or even persecuted, tends to be religion. And I find it interesting that Darwinism has been labeled as such by some dissenters. I think when we have realms of science where it is not a settled debate, but new evidence supporting either side is either long in coming to light or open to multiple interpretations, it is natural for the groups to resort to name calling. You can only debate the interpretation of the same piece of data for so long before everything has been said about it and the only way to get traction is to go after the credulity of the other side.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

These are my thoughts on it: I'm not smart enough to understand the science behind any of this, and I never will be. That's ok though, because I know somebody who is. Obviously, I'm referring to God...yup, the same God you believe in Colton. I have no reason to not believe the Bible, and quite frankly, I don't see the point in picking out which parts of the Bible that we agree with. You either agree with all of it, or none of it.

Now Creationism isn't a salvation point, but when you pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible, it undermines the authority of the Bible.

wow... I knew this thread would provide real joy, but I didn't expect it to reach its apogee by post #7

fundamentalism ftw!!1!!!!!1

 

[carolinajazz]

Now I have not heard any objections from you about the hominid fossils that we have found since then and that I furnished a link for. Do you doubt the validity of these fossils? On what grounds? Or did you not even bother to look at the evidence you were presented?

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The term "hominid" is also used in the more restricted sense as hominins or "humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees". In this usage, all hominid species other than Homo sapiens are extinct."

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange! Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.”

Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT???

 

[MVP]

Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.”

Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT???

To little time for us to see what may happen within hundreds of thousands of years. But see this and ask yourself same question again.

 

[MVP]

I guess if they ask questions that ring true it would be valid to take them seriously until you heard the answer to those questions. And as soon as we stop listening to those with dissenting opinions, regardless of the topic, then we stop really learning and progressing.

That's all very true but problem is they really do not ask any serious or valid questions. Think this way, if they would present any kind of serious evidence against evolution wouldn't more scientist would follow? Wouldn't that 0.14% steadily increase through the years? I mean if it would be 14% vs 86% than I would consider it a bit more valid but 14 scientists vs 986 ?

 

[♪alt13]

Look at it again. It's all from On the Imperfection of the Geological Record - which appears to be chapter 9.
Chapter 10 is On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings.

Dude I own the book.

 

[♪alt13]

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The term "hominid" is also used in the more restricted sense as hominins or "humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees". In this usage, all hominid species other than Homo sapiens are extinct."

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange! Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.”

Evolutionary theory does not have a scale to go up. That is your own preconception. The other apes occupy a niche like every other creature. I would also remind you that we are threatening their existence now.

Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT???

Yeah. Humans killed or mated with them. It seems we did both to the Neanderthal. It would only make sense, given that we love both sex and war, that apes would have to be sufficiently different than us to survive.

 

[PearlWatson]

That's all very true but problem is they really do not ask any serious or valid questions. Think this way, if they would present any kind of serious evidence against evolution wouldn't more scientist would follow? Wouldn't that 0.14% steadily increase through the years? I mean if it would be 14% vs 86% than I would consider it a bit more valid but 14 scientists vs 986 ?

Because "evolutionary science" is a belief system that doesn't matter. It is atheist apologetics. It doesn't make the world a better place to believe a fish bladder became a human lung by accident. I would think most scientists go into scientific fields that make a difference in the world.

The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. ~ Crichton

 

[MVP]

Because "evolutionary science" is a belief system that doesn't matter. It is atheist apologetics. It doesn't make the world a better place to believe a fish bladder became a human lung by accident. I would think most scientists go into scientific fields that make a difference in the world.

And that's exactly why nobody takes creationists seriously - because you talk nonsense and do not spend time to learn about subject. No evolutionist will ever say that fish bladder became human lung by accident. So why even mention such absurd as any part of evolution?
How about first woman created from Adam's rib? Does it make sense or difference in the world?

 

[♪alt13]

The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. ~ Crichton

Like Charles Darwin

 

[PearlWatson]

No evolutionist will ever say that fish bladder became human lung by accident.

They certainly don't say it happened by design.

It is just a random (accidental) occurrence for a bladder to turn into a lung, like when you roll a 6 sided dice every million rolls or so you roll a 7.

 

[LogGrad98]

That's all very true but problem is they really do not ask any serious or valid questions. Think this way, if they would present any kind of serious evidence against evolution wouldn't more scientist would follow? Wouldn't that 0.14% steadily increase through the years? I mean if it would be 14% vs 86% than I would consider it a bit more valid but 14 scientists vs 986 ?

It only takes one person to ask a valid question. It is the merits of the question that determine validity, not the size of the fanclub.