Thought about creation

[dismayed]

The theory of gravity is flat out incorrect in some instances. That is why the theory of relativity came to be. The theory of relativity is lacking in some respects. Such is why fields such as quantum mechanics have come into existence. All of these theories do change over time, but it is more like we build on what is already there and further tweak it. It is not real common that something would get completely thrown out.

[Stan Silliman]

You are exactly right. They've done exactly what you said.

However, there isn't a link, make that the evil graduated progression, that
shows a species evolving into another species.

That's where I have the problem with evolution. So far, all they have is a
species and another completely different species. But absolutely nothing
that shows one species (you can name any of the tens of thousands of
species currently discovered) evolving into another species.

Personally, I believe that the theory of evolution (aka the wishful thinking
of evolution) should be called the extrapolation of transformation.

Scientifically, evolution doesn't exist.

I'm told that Darwin's "Evolution of the Species" doesn't even mention humans, at least through the first 450 pages. It's all birds and lizards and frogs and plants.

The alternative is the busy, busy, busy, busy God theory. God makes the wolf, likes the dna, sprinkles a little red color in the mix and brings out the fox, then keeps the same dna in the lab then goes for the dog.

Same thing with the Cro-Magnons, the Neanderthals, Homos Erectus and humans. One group is brought out, created from nothing, allowed to romp around and then die out and then a whole new specie is brought forward from nothing. Is that the way it works? Here's another question for those favoring the busy God theory. When a specie dies out and many do each century, why wouldn't God bring them back? He's already got the formula, tried and true. Surely there was a use for that specie.

Under this assumption, how many new creatures are ushered into existance every century? Or every millenium. The biologists on the board could probably answer that.

[fourthworldtraffic]

"dinosaurs"

[Stan Silliman]

Here's a link to the "missing link". How often do you get to say that? Missing Linky

[Stan Silliman]

Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods (ActionBioscience)

[Thunder]

Have fun reading!!!

Early Skeleton Evolution

[possumfritter]

Looks "exactly" like the remains of the Prairie Dog I found out in my field last week, and I bet it's only about 47 days old. Hmmmmm...I should have taken a picture of it, then I could have had an unvieling right here in OKC.

[RiteReader]

If you don't understand something you need to go to the original source and do your research. Most movies, etc. are only made from that person's point of view. You can't depend on second hand information.

[Midtowner]

Looks "exactly" like the remains of the Prairie Dog I found out in my field last week, and I bet it's only about 47 days old. Hmmmmm...I should have taken a picture of it, then I could have had an unvieling right here in OKC.

Ah yes, you have completely discredited this information. Thank you for your informed and expert input.

[possumfritter]

Frankly, I am amazed at how they can say that lil critter is 47 million years old.

Shoot, I dunno. To me, it's the same as Astronomers venturing out into space with their telescopes searching for when and where the Universe began.

I am absolutely facinated and in complete awe by the pictures from Hubble.

But, I am just as facinated and in complete awe when a baby is born.

Just makes me appreciate The Creator that much more.

[Midtowner]

Frankly, I am amazed at how they can say that lil critter is 47 million years old.

Are you suggesting that the claim (of the age of the fossil) cannot be substantiated?

[Prunepicker]

Are you suggesting that the claim (of the age of the fossil) cannot be
substantiated?

I'm not sure about Possumfritter, but I'm certain. The fossil record absolutely
and unequivocally knocks the "wishful thinking of evolution" out of the park.

As a scientist I can't accept evolution as a viable alternative to whatever.

I've said this before, I'm not an adherent of Intelligent Design. It's simply a
fact that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. That is an absolute fact.

I love absolutes, because I'm a scientist AND a physicist.

[Midtowner]

I'm not sure about Possumfritter, but I'm certain. The fossil record absolutely
and unequivocally knocks the "wishful thinking of evolution" out of the park.

As a scientist I can't accept evolution as a viable alternative to whatever.

I've said this before, I'm not an adherent of Intelligent Design. It's simply a
fact that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. That is an absolute fact.

I love absolutes, because I'm a scientist AND a physicist.

Who was talking about a fossil record?

There are thousands of biologists, physicists and such who would absolutely disagree with your assertion.

[Stan Silliman]

I find this thread to be a mirror of most threads that occur on the political board - the progressives side with prevailing science, fundamental conservatives side against.

When you transfer the idea of evolution over to business and economical systems you have a lively debate using many Darwinian words such "survival of the fittest" or "companies best suited to adapt survive."

In that case, one might call General Motors a dinosaur, being slow to adapt, wedded to the status quo, unwilling to change its systems.

It's only natural that those who lean hard right would reject evolution. To accept evolution means giving up some power and long held beliefs. This type of siding extends to almost any debate issue.

[Heyuri]

I'm not sure about Possumfritter, but I'm certain. The fossil record absolutely
and unequivocally knocks the "wishful thinking of evolution" out of the park.

As a scientist I can't accept evolution as a viable alternative to whatever.

I've said this before, I'm not an adherent of Intelligent Design. It's simply a
fact that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. That is an absolute fact.

I love absolutes, because I'm a scientist AND a physicist.

I love absolutes as well, while we are at it...

The Theory of Gravity cannot be proven, so it should not be polluting our children's minds.

The Theory of Relativity cannot be proven, so it also, should not be taught in schools.

[HSC-Sooner]

I'm not sure about Possumfritter, but I'm certain. The fossil record absolutely
and unequivocally knocks the "wishful thinking of evolution" out of the park.

As a scientist I can't accept evolution as a viable alternative to whatever.

I've said this before, I'm not an adherent of Intelligent Design. It's simply a
fact that the theory of evolution cannot be proven. That is an absolute fact.

I love absolutes, because I'm a scientist AND a physicist.

Biological sciences deal with complex organic organisms, complex biochemical machines, and interactions with the environment that these organisms live in. Very rarely in other sciences do we deal with absolutes. Freud, Jung, and other psychologists made significant contributions to psychology yet their theories are not 'absolute'. Pharmaceutical sciences is not an 'exact' science but significant discoveries for human health are still made.

I love complexities, because I'm a scientist AND a biologist.

[Prunepicker]

I find this thread to be a mirror of most threads that occur on the political
board - the progressives side with prevailing science, fundamental
conservatives side against.

This thing about being progressive is misleading. You can be driving north
on I-35 to Wichita, miss the turn off and continue progressing north on
I-35. You'll never reach Wichita until you come to the fact that progressing
north isn't the right thing to do.

[HSC-Sooner]

This thing about being progressive is misleading. You can be driving north
on I-35 to Wichita, miss the turn off and continue progressing north on
I-35. You'll never reach Wichita until you come to the fact that progressing
north isn't the right thing to do.

That's not being progressive! That's staying the course! I'm already on it, so I'll keep going!

Progressing means changing your course in light of new information. I haven't changed my course since evidence suggests I'm on the right track. If I find evidence that disproves evolution, I'll change!

[Edmond_Outsider]

That's not being progressive! That's staying the course! I'm already on it, so I'll keep going!

Progressing means changing your course in light of new information. I haven't changed my course since evidence suggests I'm on the right track. If I find evidence that disproves evolution, I'll change!

NO! Science is absolutely about absolutes. No new information can be true because a retired science teacher declares it so.

I had a biology teacher in High School who taught us that Penthouse didn't excite him but he could still remember the flash of Blaze Starr's thigh he saw when he was in the Navy and the sight made him go, and I quote, "BOING!"

I'm certain that this was true and because it has been established that all high school science teachers are the arbiters of "de truth" that settles it.

[Stan Silliman]

NO! Science is absolutely about absolutes. No new information can be true because a retired science teacher declares it so.

I had a biology teacher in High School who taught us that Penthouse didn't excite him but he could still remember the flash of Blaze Starr's thigh he saw when he was in the Navy and the sight made him go, and I quote, "BOING!"

I'm certain that this was true and because it has been established that all high school science teachers are the arbiters of "de truth" that settles it.

Blaze Starr would make Huey long.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I don't know what happened to me. I used to wake up at the crack of Dawn....


but it pi$$ed off Tony Orlando

[Caboose]

I find this thread to be a mirror of most threads that occur on the political board - the progressives side with prevailing science, fundamental conservatives side against.

I dont see that all. The side on the political board who fancies themselves as progressives are just as bound by dogma and fundamentalism as the conservatives. The "progressives" believe in their ideology no matter how wrong the evidence shows their beliefs to be.

The fundamental trait of liberalism, in it's traditional sense, is that no matter what stance you hold on any given issue you understand that your stance may change according to the available evidence. We do not see this trait in the modern liberal, those "progressives" on our political board included. Whether the topic is gun control, affirmative action, anthropogenic global warming, or matters of economics.... the stance of the board "progressives" adheres to strict dogmatic ideology, unflinching in the face of damning evidence.

The modern liberal is just as much a zealous religious fundamentalist as the right-leaning bible-thumper they continually deride for the same quality.

While we are on the topic, while observing this behavior from a largely neutral viewpoint, I have also noticed that the "progressives" are far more shrill and fanatical about their beliefs (however they are formed) on the political than the conservatives. The "progressives" are almost without fail the quicker to anger, become frustrated, jump to conclusions about other posters, and delve into insults and personal attacks when the facts of the debate do not support their position.

[RiteReader]

Wonderful explanation! Wonder how things get extinct? It works just as well for Ford, Chevy and Chrysler. Nobody has a problem with Henry Ford starting with the automobile.

[RiteReader]

I dont see that all. The side on the political board who fancies themselves as progressives are just as bound by dogma and fundamentalism as the conservatives. The "progressives" believe in their ideology no matter how wrong the evidence shows their beliefs to be.

The fundamental trait of liberalism, in it's traditional sense, is that no matter what stance you hold on any given issue you understand that your stance may change according to the available evidence. We do not see this trait in the modern liberal, those "progressives" on our political board included. Whether the topic is gun control, affirmative action, anthropogenic global warming, or matters of economics.... the stance of the board "progressives" adheres to strict dogmatic ideology, unflinching in the face of damning evidence.

The modern liberal is just as much a zealous religious fundamentalist as the right-leaning bible-thumper they continually deride for the same quality.

While we are on the topic, while observing this behavior from a largely neutral viewpoint, I have also noticed that the "progressives" are far more shrill and fanatical about their beliefs (however they are formed) on the political than the conservatives. The "progressives" are almost without fail the quicker to anger, become frustrated, jump to conclusions about other posters, and delve into insults and personal attacks when the facts of the debate do not support their position.

Thank you, Caboose. One reason why conservatives are more calm could be that you can't measure faith. There is the Security in the Believer which will only be measured when the end comes.

[Stan Silliman]

I dont see that all. The side on the political board who fancies themselves as progressives are just as bound by dogma and fundamentalism as the conservatives. The "progressives" believe in their ideology no matter how wrong the evidence shows their beliefs to be.

The fundamental trait of liberalism, in it's traditional sense, is that no matter what stance you hold on any given issue you understand that your stance may change according to the available evidence. We do not see this trait in the modern liberal, those "progressives" on our political board included. Whether the topic is gun control, affirmative action, anthropogenic global warming, or matters of economics.... the stance of the board "progressives" adheres to strict dogmatic ideology, unflinching in the face of damning evidence.

The modern liberal is just as much a zealous religious fundamentalist as the right-leaning bible-thumper they continually deride for the same quality.

While we are on the topic, while observing this behavior from a largely neutral viewpoint, I have also noticed that the "progressives" are far more shrill and fanatical about their beliefs (however they are formed) on the political than the conservatives. The "progressives" are almost without fail the quicker to anger, become frustrated, jump to conclusions about other posters, and delve into insults and personal attacks when the facts of the debate do not support their position.

Good comeback, I like that.

But really, do you consider HSC-Sooner to be shrill? He comes on this thread as a scientist and he freely admits to no absolutes, that evidence changes all the time and he is willing to accept these changes. And from time to time he explains how bio-science works and how conclusions are reached.

Compare that to Prune's posts which do represent a bit of logic but it's all circular. It comes down to "I believe what I believe because that is what I have always believed" and then he adds "no matter what evidence you present you can't shake my beliefs."

By the way, the definitions and the arguments of how servs and libs differ are always interesting. Years ago at Jokers Comedy Club I opened for Pat Paulsen, who ran for president every four years and had a fairly long, pretty funny routine on the differences between servs and libs.

[Caboose]

Good comeback, I like that.

But really, do you consider HSC-Sooner to be shrill? He comes on this thread as a scientist and he freely admits to no absolutes, that evidence changes all the time and he is willing to accept these changes. And from time to time he explains how bio-science works and how conclusions are reached.

Compare that to Prune's posts which do represent a bit of logic but it's all circular. It comes down to "I believe what I believe because that is what I have always believed" and then he adds "no matter what evidence you present you can't shake my beliefs."

By the way, the definitions and the arguments of how servs and libs differ are always interesting. Years ago at Jokers Comedy Club I opened for Pat Paulsen, who ran for president every four years and had a fairly long, pretty funny routine on the differences between servs and libs.

I didn't mention any names. I am just talking about in general.

If you take the topic of evolution the science is firmly on the side of those you are identifying as the progressives. I think it is because of that fact that the discussions remain largely civil. A conservative posts why he thinks it is wrong or questions it, and the "progressives", with science on their side, calmly and rationally explains why the serv is incorrect...in a college professor sort of way.

Contrast that to discussions on say... anthropogenic global warming. Here the science is not on the side of the "progressives". When a conservative posts why he thinks they or wrong, or a rather neutral party expresses skepticism... oh damn.. watch the vitriol from the "progressives" boil over. The "progressive" has already made up his mind, by Gaea, and no amount of science is going to change it. Not only that, anyone who questions the authority of the fictional consensus is a shill for big oil or a stupid redneck.

Pay close attention to the tone of debate by the "progressives" when the science (or evidence) is on their side, and when it isn't. In the latter the "progressives" revert into the very thing the deride the conservatives for being - religious fundies relying on circular logic to defend their belief in something that is not supported by the evidence.

Neither side has a monopoly on the truth. Both resort to circular logic when their views conflict with reality. The only difference I see is that the "progressives" become far more hateful and intolerant when doing so.

I guess in short, on THIS issue (evolution) the "progressives" do have the science/evidence on their side, as you pointed out, while the conservatives blindly oppose science/evidence. But you attempted to project that as a truth that extends to all other topics as well. That is simply not true. There are countless matters in which the science/evidence is on the sides of the conservatives, while the "progressives" blindly oppose it due to their dogmatic ideology.