Science today
-
Josh Gray wrote:
If we accept the fact that this thing in 47 million years old doesn't that alone lend some weight to the theory of evolution?
Absolutely. But then, no one is obligated by law to accept it. At least not yet anyway.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
All it proves is that there were lemurs a bit more like monkeys 47 million years ago.
How closely are the theories of a young earth and intellectual design related? If we accept the fact that this thing in 47 million years old doesn't that alone lend some weight to the theory of evolution?
Josh Gray wrote:
How closely are the theories of a young earth and intellectual design related?
Do you mean intelligent design ? Not even a little bit.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I bet he would, even if only by reflex.
Then he'd run into Gabriel, Michael, Raphael and Uriel and call them "Kiddies."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Josh Gray wrote:
How closely are the theories of a young earth and intellectual design related?
Do you mean intelligent design ? Not even a little bit.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But then, no one is obligated by law to accept it. At least not yet anyway.
Ah Stan, always true to form. Do you really thing that you might one day be required by law to accept such a thing?
Josh Gray wrote:
Do you really thing that you might one day be required by law to accept such a thing?
Yes
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Do you really thing that you might one day be required by law to accept such a thing?
Yes
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you mean intelligent design ?
Yep
Christian Graus wrote:
Not even a little bit.
Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?
Josh Gray wrote:
Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?
Not even remotely. It's possible to use genealogies to work out that Adam was 6,000 years ago, and if we then assume that the people created in Gen 1 were Adam and Eve, then we can assume the world is as old as Adam. However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible. For example, Cain dwelt outside Eden, and then went out and found himself a wife. From where, if Adam and Eve and their kids, were the only people alive ? If he married his sister, he hardly had to find her.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: Do you really thing that you might one day be required by law to accept such a thing? Yes
Dare I ask why you would think this?
Josh Gray wrote:
Dare I ask why you would think this?
Once the Jeffersonian Revolution takes place, he and his neighbors will vote it into law. Or round-off Pi; it'll be hard for them to choose.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
It is an amazing fossil,no doubt. And it certainly does add powerful confirmation of Darwin's original theory. But regardless of what any one says, no fossil provides the same kind of proof as, say, observering gravitational lenses provides proof of Einsteins original theories. It is highly unlikely that the animal that left the fossil behind was an ancestor of anything alive today. It could as easily represent a line that went extinct 30 million years ago. All it proves is that there were lemurs a bit more like monkeys 47 million years ago.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But regardless of what any one says, no fossil provides the same kind of proof as, say, observering gravitational lenses provides proof of Einsteins original theories.
Sure it does. Evolutionary theory makes a prediction, observations found in the fossil record bears it out. Einstein's theory of special relativity makes a prediction, observations of gravitational lenses bear it out. There's no goddamned difference at all except that (for some reason) we're comparing a physics theory and biology theory because, I dunno, they're both theories? Secondly, shame on you for implying that the burden of proof for evolution is placed squarely on the fossil record when, as you should bloody well know, a modern understanding of evolutionary theory is exceptionally more reliant on the modern synthesis and the advent of molecular biology, which certainly provides a wealth of objective, empiric, testable, and repeatable data.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is highly unlikely that the animal that left the fossil behind was an ancestor of anything alive today.
Well, thank goodness you're around to offer your conclusions based on having no particular role in research paleontology and your in-depth examination of a picture of the fossil in a populist online article. I really don't quite know what we would do without it.
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: Do you really thing that you might one day be required by law to accept such a thing? Yes
Dare I ask why you would think this?
50 years ago no one thought the federal government could, or would, possibly be able to force us to accept legalized abortion. 30 years ago no one thought that there would be any possibility of forcing the American public to accept homosexuality. Both of those are pretty much done deals now. The only reason either of these are even issues has absolutely nothing to do with freedom and liberty. They are important because they remove power from the hands of people and place it into the hands of a collectivist ruling elite. There is absolutely no reason to believe that effectively outlawing freedom of thought in regards to holding or at least promoting non-scientific, more religious shaped, opinions will not, or cannot, one day be possible.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But regardless of what any one says, no fossil provides the same kind of proof as, say, observering gravitational lenses provides proof of Einsteins original theories.
Sure it does. Evolutionary theory makes a prediction, observations found in the fossil record bears it out. Einstein's theory of special relativity makes a prediction, observations of gravitational lenses bear it out. There's no goddamned difference at all except that (for some reason) we're comparing a physics theory and biology theory because, I dunno, they're both theories? Secondly, shame on you for implying that the burden of proof for evolution is placed squarely on the fossil record when, as you should bloody well know, a modern understanding of evolutionary theory is exceptionally more reliant on the modern synthesis and the advent of molecular biology, which certainly provides a wealth of objective, empiric, testable, and repeatable data.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is highly unlikely that the animal that left the fossil behind was an ancestor of anything alive today.
Well, thank goodness you're around to offer your conclusions based on having no particular role in research paleontology and your in-depth examination of a picture of the fossil in a populist online article. I really don't quite know what we would do without it.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Secondly, shame on you for implying that the burden of proof for evolution is placed squarely on the fossil record when,
I didn't even remotely imply that.
Fisticuffs wrote:
as you should bloody well know, a modern understanding of evolutionary theory is exceptionally more reliant on the modern synthesis and the advent of molecular biology, which certainly provides a wealth of objective, empiric, testable, and repeatable data.
I agree with that completely and said nothing to suggest otherwise.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, thank goodness you're around to offer your conclusions based on having no particular role in research paleontology and your in-depth examination of a picture of the fossil in a populist online article. I really don't quite know what we would do without it.
The simple fact remains that there is absolutely no way to know with any certainty at all what became of the descendents of this creature. It might well have been a biological dead end. There is absolutely no way to know (unless, of course, genetic material could be extracted from it). And to suggest otherwise does, in fact, suggest that you wish to use this evidence for purposes haveing nothing at all to do with science one way or another.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
50 years ago no one thought the federal government could, or would, possibly be able to force us to accept legalized abortion. 30 years ago no one thought that there would be any possibility of forcing the American public to accept homosexuality. Both of those are pretty much done deals now. The only reason either of these are even issues has absolutely nothing to do with freedom and liberty. They are important because they remove power from the hands of people and place it into the hands of a collectivist ruling elite. There is absolutely no reason to believe that effectively outlawing freedom of thought in regards to holding or at least promoting non-scientific, more religious shaped, opinions will not, or cannot, one day be possible.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
50 years ago no one thought the federal government could, or would, possibly be able to force us to accept legalized abortion. 30 years ago no one thought that there would be any possibility of forcing the American public to accept homosexuality.
But there is a difference between these things being legal and forcing people to accept them. The beauty pageant slapper that said she didn't support gay marriage may have been criticized heavily but she wont be punished under the law for her views.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Secondly, shame on you for implying that the burden of proof for evolution is placed squarely on the fossil record when,
I didn't even remotely imply that.
Fisticuffs wrote:
as you should bloody well know, a modern understanding of evolutionary theory is exceptionally more reliant on the modern synthesis and the advent of molecular biology, which certainly provides a wealth of objective, empiric, testable, and repeatable data.
I agree with that completely and said nothing to suggest otherwise.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, thank goodness you're around to offer your conclusions based on having no particular role in research paleontology and your in-depth examination of a picture of the fossil in a populist online article. I really don't quite know what we would do without it.
The simple fact remains that there is absolutely no way to know with any certainty at all what became of the descendents of this creature. It might well have been a biological dead end. There is absolutely no way to know (unless, of course, genetic material could be extracted from it). And to suggest otherwise does, in fact, suggest that you wish to use this evidence for purposes haveing nothing at all to do with science one way or another.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I agree with that completely and said nothing to suggest otherwise.
Well, okay, but it just seemed really odd to specifically pit fossil evidence (reasonably more subjective) against physics measurements (reasonably more objective) as a broad comparison of evolution and relativity when fairer comparisons exist.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The simple fact remains that there is absolutely no way to know with any certainty at all what became of the descendents of this creature.
That's such a cop-out! Science is by definition incapable of providing certainty. It's one thing to evaluate the evidence and assert that it doesn't particularly support a claim or hypothesis, it's quite another to reject their conclusions out of hand because of the mere existence of a contrary hypothesis for which you provide no evidence and to which you ascribe no particular (subjective or objective) probability of being true.
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
50 years ago no one thought the federal government could, or would, possibly be able to force us to accept legalized abortion. 30 years ago no one thought that there would be any possibility of forcing the American public to accept homosexuality.
But there is a difference between these things being legal and forcing people to accept them. The beauty pageant slapper that said she didn't support gay marriage may have been criticized heavily but she wont be punished under the law for her views.
Josh Gray wrote:
But there is a difference between these things being legal and forcing people to accept them.
I disagree with that completely. If the secular institutions of our society remained unbiased bastions of free thought as they once were and the social attitudes were evolving independently of influence from such sources then, yes, you might have a point. But that simply and obviously is not the case. Obviously we have little peaceful choice but to accept the law and in addition there is a tremendous amount of pressure to accept them socially. It is all very much a religious like fervor that can be dangerous to publically oppose.
Josh Gray wrote:
The beauty pageant slapper that said she didn't support gay marriage may have been criticized heavily but she wont be punished under the law for her views.
The fact that she received a savage public condemnation on the part of the new puritanism is evidence enough.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:05 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I agree with that completely and said nothing to suggest otherwise.
Well, okay, but it just seemed really odd to specifically pit fossil evidence (reasonably more subjective) against physics measurements (reasonably more objective) as a broad comparison of evolution and relativity when fairer comparisons exist.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The simple fact remains that there is absolutely no way to know with any certainty at all what became of the descendents of this creature.
That's such a cop-out! Science is by definition incapable of providing certainty. It's one thing to evaluate the evidence and assert that it doesn't particularly support a claim or hypothesis, it's quite another to reject their conclusions out of hand because of the mere existence of a contrary hypothesis for which you provide no evidence and to which you ascribe no particular (subjective or objective) probability of being true.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, okay, but it just seemed really odd to specifically pit fossil evidence (reasonably more subjective) against physics measurements (reasonably more objective) as a broad comparison of evolution and relativity when fairer comparisons exist.
I don't see it as odd at all. The various branches of science are not all equal. Some have more directly observable and measurable means of providing supporting evidence than do others.
Fisticuffs wrote:
That's such a cop-out!
No it wasn't. It is a simple statment of fact.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Science is by definition incapable of providing certainty. It's one thing to evaluate the evidence and assert that it doesn't particularly support a claim or hypothesis, it's quite another to reject their conclusions out of hand because of the mere existence of a contrary hypothesis for which you provide no evidence and to which you ascribe no particular (subjective or objective) probability of being true.
When the hell did I reject any conclusions out of hand? I agree with the conclusions that this provides powerful evidence in support of darwinian evoluion. It is the very uncertainly implicite in scientific research that compels me to assert that it does not represent the sort of absolute, undeniable proof of anything that the media is advancing with the tone of the report linked to.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
But there is a difference between these things being legal and forcing people to accept them.
I disagree with that completely. If the secular institutions of our society remained unbiased bastions of free thought as they once were and the social attitudes were evolving independently of influence from such sources then, yes, you might have a point. But that simply and obviously is not the case. Obviously we have little peaceful choice but to accept the law and in addition there is a tremendous amount of pressure to accept them socially. It is all very much a religious like fervor that can be dangerous to publically oppose.
Josh Gray wrote:
The beauty pageant slapper that said she didn't support gay marriage may have been criticized heavily but she wont be punished under the law for her views.
The fact that she received a savage public condemnation on the part of the new puritanism is evidence enough.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:05 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
I disagree with that completely.
Unless it's illegal to express the opinion of opposing same sex marriage (just using this as an example) which is an easily verifiable fact then I dont see how you can argue your point. Any society will have a majority held moral opinion on issue like this and these will always change over time. The fact that in the last 30 years the position of the majority may have moved away fro your own is no reason to scream conspiracy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that she received a savage public condemnation on the part of the new puritanism is evidence enough.
I dont keep up with the US media but I cant imagine that there were not many many right wing commentators supporting both her view and her right to that view?
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, okay, but it just seemed really odd to specifically pit fossil evidence (reasonably more subjective) against physics measurements (reasonably more objective) as a broad comparison of evolution and relativity when fairer comparisons exist.
I don't see it as odd at all. The various branches of science are not all equal. Some have more directly observable and measurable means of providing supporting evidence than do others.
Fisticuffs wrote:
That's such a cop-out!
No it wasn't. It is a simple statment of fact.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Science is by definition incapable of providing certainty. It's one thing to evaluate the evidence and assert that it doesn't particularly support a claim or hypothesis, it's quite another to reject their conclusions out of hand because of the mere existence of a contrary hypothesis for which you provide no evidence and to which you ascribe no particular (subjective or objective) probability of being true.
When the hell did I reject any conclusions out of hand? I agree with the conclusions that this provides powerful evidence in support of darwinian evoluion. It is the very uncertainly implicite in scientific research that compels me to assert that it does not represent the sort of absolute, undeniable proof of anything that the media is advancing with the tone of the report linked to.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't see it as odd at all. The various branches of science are not all equal. Some have more directly observable and measurable means of providing supporting evidence than do others.
Then again: Why pick the most subjective evidence of evolution to compare to the objective evidence of relativity when a better comparison exists? Perhaps it's just that I'm not entirely clear what this comparison was meant to accomplish.
Stan Shannon wrote:
When the hell did I reject any conclusions out of hand?
Well, when you said: The simple fact remains that there is absolutely no way to know with any certainty at all what became of the descendents of this creature. It might well have been a biological dead end. There is absolutely no way to know (unless, of course, genetic material could be extracted from it). And to suggest otherwise does, in fact, suggest that you wish to use this evidence for purposes haveing nothing at all to do with science one way or another. It sure sounds like you're rejecting their conclusion that this fossil is a common ancestor of humans and other primates.
Stan Shannon wrote:
that the media is advancing with the tone of the report linked to.
I must agree that journalistic reporting of scientific and health research is (with few exceptions) an abysmal disgrace.
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I disagree with that completely.
Unless it's illegal to express the opinion of opposing same sex marriage (just using this as an example) which is an easily verifiable fact then I dont see how you can argue your point. Any society will have a majority held moral opinion on issue like this and these will always change over time. The fact that in the last 30 years the position of the majority may have moved away fro your own is no reason to scream conspiracy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that she received a savage public condemnation on the part of the new puritanism is evidence enough.
I dont keep up with the US media but I cant imagine that there were not many many right wing commentators supporting both her view and her right to that view?
Josh Gray wrote:
cant imagine that there were not many many right wing commentators supporting both her view and her right to that view?
There were mainstreamer liberals defending her as well. Not quite everyone has fallen into the I hate everyone who disagrees wi9th me camps.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Josh Gray wrote:
But there is a difference between these things being legal and forcing people to accept them.
I disagree with that completely. If the secular institutions of our society remained unbiased bastions of free thought as they once were and the social attitudes were evolving independently of influence from such sources then, yes, you might have a point. But that simply and obviously is not the case. Obviously we have little peaceful choice but to accept the law and in addition there is a tremendous amount of pressure to accept them socially. It is all very much a religious like fervor that can be dangerous to publically oppose.
Josh Gray wrote:
The beauty pageant slapper that said she didn't support gay marriage may have been criticized heavily but she wont be punished under the law for her views.
The fact that she received a savage public condemnation on the part of the new puritanism is evidence enough.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:05 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that she received a savage public condemnation on the part of the new puritanism is evidence enough.
I thought you were all for your friends and neighbors getting together and persecuting those who disagree with them? Oh, it's only your friends and neighbors persecuting people who disagree with them.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Stan Shannon wrote:
But then, no one is obligated by law to accept it. At least not yet anyway.
Ah Stan, always true to form. Do you really thing that you might one day be required by law to accept such a thing?
Josh Gray wrote:
Do you really thing that you might one day be required by law to accept such a thing?
Stan is only hoping that someday we'll all be forced to accept his view of religion by law. Any other position poisons his sensibilities.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!