posted
And you think this somehow supports biblical creationism?
Lets see, we have an overarching, explanatory theory that adapts to changes in evidence.
Vs one that doesn't, even when the evidence contradicts it soundly (perhaps you note the implication of a millions of years timespan?).
Yes, those scientists, completely unwilling to change their theories in the face of evidence . . . oh wait, they do it all the time, here's an example. Yet clearly they are unable to see/understand all the evidence against them . . .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it funny how the people who are giving us this new information are scientists? Hmmm...you'd think those pesky, dogmatic scientists would want to keep things like this quiet.
posted
If it weren't Jay posting this, I wouldn't be able to tell if it's a post supporting creationism or evolution.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, anything that dates things in terms of millions of years isn't supportive of creationism. The type of fossil found and the time scales involved are consistent with evolution, but indicate that a specific historic event - the split between between modern man and modern apes - occurred much earlier than we had previously supposed based on previous evidence.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er, yes, that's the point of science. New discoveries and all that. The ability of science to change with new evidence is a strength, not a weakness. Scientists don't claim to have the absolute, final truth about things. Ironically, being able to admit that you were wrong and change your ideas when the evidence contradict you will probably get you closer to the truth than picking one story and sticking with it.
Minor tweaking of scientific ideas doesn't necessarily negate the original ideas, either. We still use Newton's ideas, but we have a clearer picture now because of Einstein. We don't throw out germ theory because we discover prions.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, good point. Aside from some of the sarcasm in the post and the fact that it's Jay, I'd almost read it as a post supporting evolution.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hysterical thing about this is that I saw the subject line before checking the name of the poster and thought the thread would be an effective attack on Biblical creationism.
It didn't occur to me that only a Biblical creationist would think that creationism's abject failure to change in response to evidence would be an argument for it. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The hysterical thing about this is that I saw the subject line before checking the name of the poster and thought the thread would be an effective attack on Biblical creationism.
Remove the subjective word "effective", and that's the exact same response I had.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: mph, good point. Aside from some of the sarcasm in the post and the fact that it's Jay, I'd almost read it as a post supporting evolution.
the fact that the change occured farther back in time than we thought is actually quite interesting.
How could anyone think that finding new data which contradicts earlier views, adn thus promptly incorporating this new data, thus gaining more accurate information, weakens the theory of evolution?
Oh, right. Ignorance of the very concept of science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular, and further, a stupidly wrong view of scientists and the scientific community.
I always forget those things...
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How could anyone think that finding new data which contradicts earlier views, adn thus promptly incorporating this new data, thus gaining more accurate information, weakens the theory of evolution?
Well there is the whole "You said that last time and you were wrong so why should we believe you now?"
You know, loss of confidence?
Not saying I think that is the case with science but it sure is the case with religion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Well there is the whole "You said that last time and you were wrong so why should we believe you now?""
So our information is more accurate than it was before.
That's a strength. Scientific information is always becoming more accurate.
Scientists have never stated they have all the answers, in the least. They make very clear that their current views are based on current evidence, and new evidence can and will, and does, as this case shows, change their views.
Do you doubt the sciences that allow the creation of nuclear power, becuase 50 years before they split the atom they didn't know they could, and were clearly wrong before then? No, because that power is staring you in the face.
If evolution was as prominant as nuclear power, no one would doubt it. Pity that it's not.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not saying I think that is the case with science but it sure is the case with religion.
You are preaching to the choir, or in this case whatever a group of scientists all rejoicing in unison is called.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
You posted a link that demonstrates that the species record changes over time to honestly incorporate expanding knowledge and facts.
I know that this is another thinly researched blind stab at the overwhelming credibility of evolutionary theory, because you're Jay, but the validity of evolution isn't being challenged at all with the expansion of a record of our closest non-human genetic relatives.
There are some people out there who like to prove to the Internet At Large that they don't understand science at all by trying to claim that the alteration of scientific records and theories is equivalent to a flaw, an 'inconsistency' that degrades the credibility of science in the face of rigid, dogmatic answers provided by whichever specific religious answer they hold to through preconclusive bias, by saying, essentially, "Look, my belief structure does not change, even in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. Yours does, therefore it is less credible than mine!" These people are generally received by the internet as being incredibly dumb, because it's an argument that nobody would make if they actually had an actionable understanding of the scientific method; one that was not convoluted by the chronic loyally-held scientific ignorances (See: "It's only a theory," Behe's Black Box, Irreducible Complexity, et. al) of the biblical creationist crowd.
Think about that before you make your next thread!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
notice how Jay has shied away from the topic.
IP: Logged |
posted
0Megabyte has it right. The reason I know science is true is that I can build stuff based on it and it actually works. If the science were false, the machine wouldn't work. The reactor core wouldn't heat up and boil the water, the laser wouldn't lase, or whatever.
That's the great thing when you have a new theory for what's going on (and this happens on scales large and small -- I constantly use the scientific method in my work), when you make a change based on that theory and then try it and <poof> it works.
If the machine works, then your theory is a thing of beauty and a joy forever. That's why I'm an applied scientist instead of a theorist. I love that moment of truth when you try it and it actually works. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fundamentalist impulse, to reject any and everything that changes, is odd to me. I can't understand how anyone can have that mindset. The only unchanging things are dead. Fundamentalism is fear.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you could have a theory that appears to work for a time, or at least within tolerances. Eventually, more information could come along to prove that your theory was only coincidentally able to predict/create consistent predictable results and didn't really represent the causal mechanism at all. There is no moral imperative to stay with a theory that has become outdated--it's not a moral issue at all, only a pragmatic one. Now there are better theories that allow more accurate/consistent results, so we'll switch to them in order to be more effective. Even if a certain scientific theory is wrong, it is no criticism of science. The practice of science is only in error if new information comes along to disprove the old theory and we don't incorporate the new information into the creation of a replacement/upgrade theory. You can't update or "improve" on your religion without meeting a lot more resistance.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It amazes me how so many people seem to feel that science and the existence of a divine entity must be an either/or type of thing.
That said, my son came home with a perfect 100% on his scientific method quiz. It made me feel all tingly inside. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How could anyone think that finding new data which contradicts earlier views, adn thus promptly incorporating this new data, thus gaining more accurate information, weakens the theory of evolution?
Well there is the whole "You said that last time and you were wrong so why should we believe you now?"
You know, loss of confidence?
Not saying I think that is the case with science but it sure is the case with religion.
I don't think this must of should be the case in religion. As a matter of fact, I think that believing that we have all the answers about an infinte God is about as just about as silly as believing that we know all there is to know about the universe. Maybe moreso.
And likely more hurtful and dangerous. I believe that the idea that we can never be wrong about religion, never learn anything new, stems from either fear or from the desire to have power over other people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: I agree that in some instances people bank their "belief in God" on some aspect of gospel doctrine rather then on God himself and fall away when that doctrine is modified.
But even I must confess that there are aspects of my faith that should they be overhauled would cause me to lose all my confidence in it.
But there is a difference between God showing us something radically different and the church saying that God is radically different.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, that was confusing. When I checked this last night, I thought the OP was satire and everyone was missing the joke, especially since mph's first post was carefully ambivalent about which it was (I do not know Jay).
shigosi didn't help either because I wasn't sure which direction the sarcasm was directed in
At least the thread has filled up a bit more since then.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Man, that was confusing. When I checked this last night, I thought the OP was satire and everyone was missing the joke, especially since mph's first post was carefully ambivalent about which it was (I do not know Jay).
shigosi didn't help either because I wasn't sure which direction the sarcasm was directed in
At least the thread has filled up a bit more since then.
Perhaps this little gem will help clarify things a bit:
quote: I for one am very anxious to go to the Creation Museum to see the facts and truth it holds. It’s a shame that so many of you won’t even consider seeing it instead of bashing it before you know the whole story. I’ve been to many evolutionist museums and seen the lies they tell, what’s the big deal if one place gets it right. Does the truth scare you that much? Are you worried that the strangle hold opinion of the day of evolution might not be able to survive a little criticism? The great thing is that the truth shall set you free and one day we will all be at the great judgment seat and know for sure.
posted
That's a quote of jay's from another topic.
While were on the subject of that quote.
"The great thing is that the truth shall set you free and one day we will all be at the great judgment seat and know for sure."
It's actually quite sad. In reality, one day he will make the wrong person mad, or contract a disease, or have an organ failure, or one of the other thousands of things that could kill you, and that will be it for him. He will never know that he's spent a good portion of his precious time alive preaching ridiculous views to people who know better, people who are smart enough to question the disease that is religion.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why anyone bothers responding to Jay anymore. It's obvious from the way he posts that he probably doesn't even really believe the crap he spouts and is saying it just to be inflammatory.
If we all ignore him, it's like he's not a part of this community, which suits me just fine.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I don't know why anyone bothers responding to Jay anymore. It's obvious from the way he posts that he probably doesn't even really believe the crap he spouts and is saying it just to be inflammatory.
I have no idea what Jay really believes, but I agree it certainly seems his posts are attempts at poking an anthill with a stick. They seem worded in a way calculated to try to get people riled up.
I am not sure he really cares about the stick, but I'm pretty sure he enjoys the scurrying of the ants.
He must, or he wouldn't keep doing it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Jay will ever change his mind. However, I think it was valuable in this case to point out that change in science is a good thing, not a bad thing. Jay might not listen, but that doesn't mean that nobody will.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zoh: He will never know that he's spent a good portion of his precious time alive preaching ridiculous views to people who know better, people who are smart enough to question the disease that is religion.
That view is ever bit as distasteful, and untruthful, as Jay's are, and I would be ashamed to agree with either of you.
Good thing that isn't likely.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, whaddaya know, I am in agreement with Kwea.
---
Shigosei, I agree it's useful to make note of errors in fact or thinking when they occur. I wouldn't quibble with that, just remark that any "ha, so now we showed him!" quality to responses might be counterproductive in the long run.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zoh, what other names might we know you by? Your account is new, but your tone suggests that you've been around here for a while.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
