Fossils challenge old evoluton theory

[sox4lifeinPA]

Mind providing examples?

 

You clearly were mocking the scientists. That's kinda the whole point of using scare quotes (around "right" and "knowledge"). Whether or not you hold the opinion, you expressed it.

 

Yes, I was mocking them, as I was mocking anyone who believes they're "right" (looking at the creationist) but can't really prove it because in the end you have to take a WHOLE lot of this life on faith...hence the mocking of "knowledge".

 

as for examples, this was fun:

 

 

No, they believe creationism isn't part of the scientific method.

I never said I was a creationist. ASSumptions, check!

 

They don't teach this in Sunday school, do they?

seems like a pretty nice insult to my church background. Underlying bigotry, check!

 

 

so in other words, a group of people convinced their way of thinking is the "right" one, can't agree on the specifics of what that way really looks like. ah.

Again...this is satire. One side says the other side is wrong while they're "right" and vice versa, whilst the "right" side doesn't even agree themselves.

 

This thread was more or less a joke...and the hyperactive evolutionist didn't catch on to that when I said:

I'm not much of a literalist, biblically speaking, so for me this really doesn't do a whole lot

in other words...I'm not much of a literal creationist, so this doesn't mean very much to me either way in the argument for or against evolution.

 

so in fact:

I do like seeing people fumbling over themselves and their "knowledge."

People acting so "right" when their knowledge is in fact so flawed, it makes me laugh.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes, I was mocking them, as I was mocking anyone who believes they're "right" (looking at the creationist) but can't really prove it because in the end you have to take a WHOLE lot of this life on faith...hence the mocking of "knowledge".

 

as for examples, this was fun:

I never said I was a creationist. ASSumptions, check!

 

seems like a pretty nice insult to my church background. Underlying bigotry, check!

Again...this is satire. One side says the other side is wrong while they're "right" and vice versa, whilst the "right" side doesn't even agree themselves.

 

This thread was more or less a joke...and the hyperactive evolutionist didn't catch on to that when I said: in other words...I'm not much of a literal creationist, so this doesn't mean very much to me either way in the argument for or against evolution.

 

so in fact: People acting so "right" when their knowledge is in fact so flawed, it makes me laugh.

oh the drama.

 

Instead of remembering this thread for the imagined insults you found, I'm thinking some people will remember it for you illustrating what you think of the other posters here. Kind of difficult to engage someone in intelligent discussion or argument when you know the that person is just trying to manufacture some sort of slight.

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

oh the drama.

 

Instead of remembering this thread for the imagined insults you found, I'm thinking some people will remember it for you illustrating what you think of the other posters here. Kind of difficult to engage someone in intelligent discussion or argument when you know the that person is just trying to manufacture some sort of slight.

 

 

I didn't have to imagine very hard. The insults were obvious. The ignorance was even better. The lack of critical reading was the crux of the issue.

 

What I think of people really isn't the issue. It's always been my e-philosophy to make a point to wish people a happy birthday even though I think they're crazy idiots. Just because we don't agree on things doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to go out and get Yuengling and wings afterwards.

 

I think there's an issue of reverse bigotry (that is, there's an unspoken set of opinions you should have) that is silently accepted by the admins of soxtalk... The mostly ignore me, which is fine, but it won't make me stop. I don't think I'm a pariah or a martyr. Just clearly more aware of this issue than others.

 

again: Church Theologians = Scientists = Finite Knowledge + Infinite Pride

[kapkomet]

I didn't have to imagine very hard. The insults were obvious. The ignorance was even better. The lack of critical reading was the crux of the issue.

 

What I think of people really isn't the issue. It's always been my e-philosophy to make a point to wish people a happy birthday even though I think they're crazy idiots. Just because we don't agree on things doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to go out and get Yuengling and wings afterwards.

 

I think there's an issue of reverse bigotry (that is, there's an unspoken set of opinions you should have) that is silently accepted by the admins of soxtalk... The mostly ignore me, which is fine, but it won't make me stop. I don't think I'm a pariah or a martyr. Just clearly more aware of this issue than others.

again: Church Theologians = Scientists = Finite Knowledge + Infinite Pride

Wow, PA, that's rich, even coming from you. There's so many ironies and oxymorons in these three sentances that I just don't know where to begin.

 

We don't "ignore" you, we give you opportunities to express your opinions. You have reversed yourself in two sentances. To paraphrase: "I'm not a martyr", yet, everyone's picking on you?

 

You know I support your freedom to express what you want, but this for me is a little over the top. I'm not chasing you away, I'm just simply saying you should think about what you're posting and how it's coming across.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Wow, PA, that's rich, even coming from you. There's so many ironies and oxymorons in these three sentances that I just don't know where to begin.

 

We don't "ignore" you, we give you opportunities to express your opinions. You have reversed yourself in two sentances. To paraphrase: "I'm not a martyr", yet, everyone's picking on you?

 

You know I support your freedom to express what you want, but this for me is a little over the top. I'm not chasing you away, I'm just simply saying you should think about what you're posting and how it's coming across.

 

 

Kap, I have no issues with you. You weren't exactly the admin that I was speaking of. I never said anyone was "picking on me"...please, I'm a grown up.

 

The only complaint I've ever had about soxtalk is that certain demographics and groups are protected and others aren't. And up until 3-4 people forgot how to read, I fully accepted that Soxtalk was a business and if Jason and Alex, et al wanted us to act a certain way I would. That's why I take breaks and try to stick to being funny (well, trying to be). I've always provided apologies when I've been out of line...There's probably 20 people that have one from me saved on their fridge at home. But I don't need to provide a justification statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I didn't have to imagine very hard. The insults were obvious. The ignorance was even better. The lack of critical reading was the crux of the issue.

 

What I think of people really isn't the issue. It's always been my e-philosophy to make a point to wish people a happy birthday even though I think they're crazy idiots. Just because we don't agree on things doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to go out and get Yuengling and wings afterwards.

 

I think there's an issue of reverse bigotry (that is, there's an unspoken set of opinions you should have) that is silently accepted by the admins of soxtalk... The mostly ignore me, which is fine, but it won't make me stop. I don't think I'm a pariah or a martyr. Just clearly more aware of this issue than others.

 

again: Church Theologians = Scientists = Finite Knowledge + Infinite Pride

Reverse bigotry? That's a laugh. Have you not noticed the posters in the Buster that range all over the spectrum? Do you see me or Rex or any other Mod/Admin using that authority to enforce some sort of belief system? Heck, if you want to dissect that... Rex is pretty solidly left, and I'm mildly left, yet if you were to make a list of the regular posters in here, you'd find just as many (if not more) conservatives as liberals.

 

If you'd just stick to the subject, and be willing to have an intelligent discourse (instead of, by your own admission, trying to create problems), you'd find you can take any stance you'd like and probably find some support here.

 

Now, can we go back to the discussion at hand? Because I think we've gone as far as we need to on the subject of you being a victim. If you want to discuss that part further, just PM me (or whomever it is you think has been bigoted towards you).

 

[kapkomet]

Kap, I have no issues with you. You weren't exactly the admin that I was speaking of. I never said anyone was "picking on me"...please, I'm a grown up.

 

The only complaint I've ever had about soxtalk is that certain demographics and groups are protected and others aren't. And up until 3-4 people forgot how to read, I fully accepted that Soxtalk was a business and if Jason and Alex, et al wanted us to act a certain way I would. That's why I take breaks and try to stick to being funny (well, trying to be). I've always provided apologies when I've been out of line...There's probably 20 people that have one from me saved on their fridge at home. But I don't need to provide a justification statement.

Ok, that's fine. I wasn't asking for a justification statement - it's just that one paragraph/sentance was just a bit sensitized, IMO. That's all I was speaking to. I know the point you're making, but I'm not seeing where people are jumping you, you bible thumping crazy.

 

 

 

 

[Texsox]

There is certainly a larger group of atheists, anti-religious posters, than regular Church goers. Certainly the social conservative groups is much smaller than the liberal social group. I tend to avoid these threads, but found an interesting conversation with Jim and stuck around. I think there can be civil discussions, but I agree with PA in some of these threads the gloves come off way to fast and miscommunication is the rule.

[NorthSideSox72]

There is certainly a larger group of atheists, anti-religious posters, than regular Church goers. Certainly the social conservative groups is much smaller than the liberal social group. I tend to avoid these threads, but found an interesting conversation with Jim and stuck around. I think there can be civil discussions, but I agree with PA in some of these threads the gloves come off way to fast and miscommunication is the rule.

huh? I believe there are one or maybe two self-described atheists/agnostics in here. There are far more people of some degree of religious faith.

 

On social issues generally though, I'd agree there is a left-lean in the Buster. I think this can be attributed to the large number of fiscally conservative but socially liberal "moderates". Of those moderates, there aren't many (if any) the other way around - conservative on social issues but liberal on business/fiscal/governmental matters.

 

And its certainly true that people get personal and snarky way too fast when it comes to discussion of religion. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

 

[Soxy]

There is certainly a larger group of atheists, anti-religious posters, than regular Church goers. Certainly the social conservative groups is much smaller than the liberal social group. I tend to avoid these threads, but found an interesting conversation with Jim and stuck around. I think there can be civil discussions, but I agree with PA in some of these threads the gloves come off way to fast and miscommunication is the rule.

I think there are probably many, many, many more self-described Christians or religious people here than the other.

 

And I think that some of those posters are not anti-religion itself, but rather anti the way religion is often manifested.

[kapkomet]

I think there are probably many, many, many more self-described Christians or religious people here than the other.

 

And I think that some of those posters are not anti-religion itself, but rather anti the way religion is often manifested.

 

That's a very good observation. You're on a roll the last couple of weeks.

 

[Soxy]

 

That's a very good observation. You're on a roll the last couple of weeks.

Prize please!

[Texsox]

Yes, there are a number of people who have created their own religious denominations around here that exactly fit their interpretation of the world. It works nicely for them. No outlay of time or effort, just to continue what they have always done.

 

BTW, I am describing beyond the usual suspects here. Including those posters that only occasionally jump into a conversation.

[jackie hayes]

Yes, I was mocking them, as I was mocking anyone who believes they're "right" (looking at the creationist) but can't really prove it because in the end you have to take a WHOLE lot of this life on faith...hence the mocking of "knowledge".

 

as for examples, this was fun:

I never said I was a creationist. ASSumptions, check!

 

seems like a pretty nice insult to my church background. Underlying bigotry, check!

Again...this is satire. One side says the other side is wrong while they're "right" and vice versa, whilst the "right" side doesn't even agree themselves.

 

This thread was more or less a joke...and the hyperactive evolutionist didn't catch on to that when I said: in other words...I'm not much of a literal creationist, so this doesn't mean very much to me either way in the argument for or against evolution.

 

so in fact: People acting so "right" when their knowledge is in fact so flawed, it makes me laugh.

You said, "you all assume I'm some bible thumping creationist". You then quote one poster out of the many who replied, and take his comments out of context. The creationism comment -- he wasn't even responding to you. It had nothing to do with your beliefs, nor did it imply anything about them. The Sunday School comment was not an insult directed at your religion; it made the point that the scientific method is fundamentally different than faith (which was obvious from the graphic). It insulted your argument, not your religion.

 

We didn't "all assume" anything. We defended the scientists who you were admittedly mocking. This is a sad little victory dance you're stepping here.

[santo=dorf]

I never said I was a creationist. ASSumptions, check!

 

seems like a pretty nice insult to my church background. Underlying bigotry, check!

What made you think I thought you were a creationist? My post was directed towards Texsox's, not yours.

 

Get a grip. Sunday school doesn't just apply to your own religion you egomaniac. I went to Sunday school and we do not share the same religious beliefs.

 

If you are starting a thread just to get a rise out of people by baiting and making snarky comments, then you are a troll. But at least you can come back talking about the last time you got banned and talk about your new signature that says something about yourself.

[Rex Kickass]

OK, enough with the personal back and forth already. If you want to discuss the topic, great. If you want to discuss who's an egomaniac, and who is out to get you on this board, please go and do it elsewhere - like a Private Message, or your myspace.

 

K, thanks.

[vandy125]

I thought that this thread was starting to head down an interesting route with some of Tex's comments. So, maybe we can steer it back in that direction. One of the things that I always think of is that there are uderlying assumptions as to the basis of truth in both religion and in those who believe that the scientific method will be able to fully understand and grasp origins.

 

For example, I'll throw my own beliefs out there because I don't want to misrepresent anyone else's. There is the belief that the Bible is a source and standard of truth. Sure there are some discoveries that may cause us to reexamine how I look at different portions of the Bible. It may even cause a look at the original Greek or Hebrew to see if the text could have been translated in a different way (can be the case with Hebrew, which is many times written without vowels as an example of something that can cause a mistranslation).

 

On the other side, there is a belief in a kind of uniformitarianism when attempting to project ideas in to the past. You have to have the assumption that conditions as they exist now behave in the same manner that they did millions or billions of years ago. You make observations on how things are working now, and project that into the past. I'm sure that you can bring up examples of ways to study the past such as looking at ice core samples or looking at the past by studying the stars, etc. Those things can be a guide, but there are still assumptions that need to be made. This is one of the examples that I can think of.

 

Where does your standard of truth sit? There is only so much that we can personally experience.

[FlaSoxxJim]

On the other side, there is a belief in a kind of uniformitarianism when attempting to project ideas in to the past. You have to have the assumption that conditions as they exist now behave in the same manner that they did millions or billions of years ago.

 

This is, I think, a corect assessment and an important point. Scientists do, by and large, contend that the basic laws of physics have held constant over the lifetime of the universe. We accept that there have been universal constants like the speed of light and the nature and behavior of subatomic particles, etc. A favorite tactic of the creation "scientists" (I'm allowing myself the PA Conceit of openly deriding a group that has no bisiness calling themselves scientists) is to suggest that in the early days of the universe (maybe the first six, for example), perhapes these universal constants were not so constant. Maybe the laws of physics were a bit more malleable at this time and, the argument goes, that is because the Hand of a divine agent is at work at this time and physical laws do not pertain to such a Hand.

 

Well, of course, none of this is testable even if it iis imaginative. Once something falls out of the realm of the testable it is no longer of concern to science.

 

That distinction, that which is testable by means of scientific inquiry and that which is not, is the dividing line that ideally should serve to keep the physical and the metaphysical at arms length. It is not for science to ponder the existence of divine agents, souls, heaven and hell, etc. It is the job of science to develop and over time incrementally improve on working explanations as to how the physical universe operates in the absence of (untestable) metaphysical causative forces.

[Texsox]

Well, of course, none of this is testable even if it iis imaginative. Once something falls out of the realm of the testable it is no longer of concern to science.

 

And that is exactly my earlier comment, although much better presented. Once I better understood the scientific process, and believe it or not, it is used in the behavior sciences as well , I started to understand the limits of our "proven" knowledge. We can not reproduce a primordial soup, there is just too much stuff there that we can't control and test. Like many debates in this country that become faith-centric (abortion, capital punishment, etc) both sides quickly reject all things on both sides, and that is a mistake.

 

I believe science is about unraveling God's work and discovering his process. In the end, if there is one, science will bring us closer to God, not further away. Sadly, at that moment, I could believe that neither side would believe what has been "proven" because they are still fighting. But bottom line, because we can not test the beginning of human time, it currently is out of the realm of science, yet some still believe science has "proven" evolution *and* the beginning of time. That is not the case, may never be the case, and if you believe in the primordial soup theory, it is by placing your faith in an untested theory.

[vandy125]

This is, I think, a corect assessment and an important point. Scientists do, by and large, contend that the basic laws of physics have held constant over the lifetime of the universe. We accept that there have been universal constants like the speed of light and the nature and behavior of subatomic particles, etc. A favorite tactic of the creation "scientists" (I'm allowing myself the PA Conceit of openly deriding a group that has no bisiness calling themselves scientists) is to suggest that in the early days of the universe (maybe the first six, for example), perhapes these universal constants were not so constant. Maybe the laws of physics were a bit more malleable at this time and, the argument goes, that is because the Hand of a divine agent is at work at this time and physical laws do not pertain to such a Hand.

 

Well, of course, none of this is testable even if it iis imaginative. Once something falls out of the realm of the testable it is no longer of concern to science.

 

That distinction, that which is testable by means of scientific inquiry and that which is not, is the dividing line that ideally should serve to keep the physical and the metaphysical at arms length. It is not for science to ponder the existence of divine agents, souls, heaven and hell, etc. It is the job of science to develop and over time incrementally improve on working explanations as to how the physical universe operates in the absence of (untestable) metaphysical causative forces.

I completely agree that this thought is outside of the realm of science because it cannot be tested at all, but even if it is a poor example, it does highlight one of the limits. We have been around for a blink of an eye in the generally agreed upon scientific timeline. How can we really know whether or not those things that we see as constants right now really have fluctuated over time in either a normalized pattern, a slow degradation, or an incredibly slow increase? We just have not been around long enough to measure some of these things.

[FlaSoxxJim]

But bottom line, because we can not test the beginning of human time, it currently is out of the realm of science, yet some still believe science has "proven" evolution *and* the beginning of time. That is not the case, may never be the case, and if you believe in the primordial soup theory, it is by placing your faith in an untested theory.

 

Firstly, anybody who believes that science has "proven" anything - ever - doesn't get science and aren't really adding to the discussion. Again, scientific inquiry allows for orderly and rational hypothesis testing to gradually build a body of evidence in support of one explanation over any of several others regarding some phenomenon of interest. That said, the body of evidence standing in support of a Neodarwinian explanation for the diversity of life on Earth far outstrips that in support of any competing theories - so much so, that there are currently no real contending causative explanations. Not to say there are not loads of details that need to be worked out, and not to say evolutionary biologists won't be don putting the ears and the eyebrows on the theory in my lifetime or in that of my great-grandchildren.

 

Back to your post. You are tossing out three wildly different timeframes (the beginning of time, the beginning of terran life, and the beginning of human life) in this one paragraph and it muddies the discussion a bit. I'd say that astrophysicists have a pretty good working timeline of the beginnings and age of the universe (predicated on the assumption that the speed of light and the behavior of matter and energy have remained constant, see previous post). Measurements of the rates of expansion of nearby and distant galaxies away from us put the universe at around 14-20 billion years old. Mind you, that's a 5 billion year spread, so science hasn't "proven" anything. Discovery of a previously predicted Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation also lends strength to the Big Bang explanations for the beginning of the universe. To measure the age of Earth and other solar system objects, radioactive decay measurements are used, and again we assume that specific isotopes decay the same way now that that they did several billion years ago.

 

As for the primordeal soup origins of life, I hold the Urey and Miller abiogenesis experiments in high regard much as I do the much earlier biogenesis experiments of Spallanzani. They are part of the historical fabric of my field. But there are as many problems with the popular misconceptions about what those primordeal soup experiments demonstrated as there are with evolution itself. Miller-Urey produced some simple amino acids in a methane-ammonia-water environment with some electrical discharge to catalyze reactions, but that's a far cry from life. If fact, the amino acids were quickly catabolized in the same mimic primitive earth atmosphere required to make them, so if anything I'd say that result cast some serious doubt on Darwin's "warm little pond" hypothesis as to where life on earth began.

 

Yes indeed, Darwin got a lot of things half-right, and plent of things flat out wrong. Darwinian evolution only stands up to scrutiny once a particulate mechanism of inheritance (genes) is incorporated into the picture (That's the difference between Darwin's original idea as presented in Origin of Species, and the refined Neodarwinian principles that make up modern evolutionary biology).

 

Then there's the most recent events you alluded to - human evolution. That's where we have a really great chance at putting together a really good picture with a few gaps here and there. Vandy's "blink of an eye" comment is right on - in evolutionary terms, humans appeared on teh scene in the last few seconds of the hypothetical 24-hour evolutionary day. lots of well-preserved fossils (with many more to be discovered), viable DNA in some of them, recent and narrow timeframes that lend themselves to very accurate dating. We can't help but get most of this story right in the end, and certainly hypotheses will be revisited, revised, trashed and reformulated along the way. But that's what it's all about.

[jackie hayes]

I completely agree that this thought is outside of the realm of science because it cannot be tested at all, but even if it is a poor example, it does highlight one of the limits. We have been around for a blink of an eye in the generally agreed upon scientific timeline. How can we really know whether or not those things that we see as constants right now really have fluctuated over time in either a normalized pattern, a slow degradation, or an incredibly slow increase? We just have not been around long enough to measure some of these things.

Why require the changes to be "slow" or "normalized"? That doesn't go far enough -- science can actually deal with patterns and change by finding an underlying model. Maybe the constants change wily-nily every time a measurement is made. Maybe the next time you drive a car your brakes won't work, because He won't like friction any more. Maybe -- because He of course has the power to change any measurement with His Noodly Appendage.

 

I'm just saying, don't count it out.

[vandy125]

Why require the changes to be "slow" or "normalized"? That doesn't go far enough -- science can actually deal with patterns and change by finding an underlying model. Maybe the constants change wily-nily every time a measurement is made. Maybe the next time you drive a car your brakes won't work, because He won't like friction any more. Maybe -- because He of course has the power to change any measurement with His Noodly Appendage.

 

I'm just saying, don't count it out.

All I'm saying is that the further back you project your assertions, the more likely that you may be missing something that has not been observed and therefore, has not been understood. A lot more "noise" enters into the picture, and we cannot know everything that has happened back then until we get one of those time ships built. That is why it is always the best guess or theory based upon what we can study here and now. Your quotes are going way above and beyond that. At what point have I invoked a higher power to change how things are going right now or even in the past?

 

It's very simple the further you project in any direction, future or past, the more likely you may have missed something. I am not saying that we shouldn't try and understand things at all, or do these sort of projections. I am just trying to put it in an accurate perspective. It takes a sort of faith to confidently state that your projections can be accurate.

[Texsox]

Firstly, anybody who believes that science has "proven" anything - ever - doesn't get science and aren't really adding to the discussion.

 

Which I believe was my original point that started this. Thank you. It takes some degree of faith to accept unproven, and can never be proven, information.

[NorthSideSox72]

All I'm saying is that the further back you project your assertions, the more likely that you may be missing something that has not been observed and therefore, has not been understood. A lot more "noise" enters into the picture, and we cannot know everything that has happened back then until we get one of those time ships built. That is why it is always the best guess or theory based upon what we can study here and now. Your quotes are going way above and beyond that. At what point have I invoked a higher power to change how things are going right now or even in the past?

 

It's very simple the further you project in any direction, future or past, the more likely you may have missed something. I am not saying that we shouldn't try and understand things at all, or do these sort of projections. I am just trying to put it in an accurate perspective. It takes a sort of faith to confidently state that your projections can be accurate.

And I, like FlaSoxxJim, will agree that this is a very important, valid point.

 

ETA: I think jackie was more getting at the point that, because this is true, some people use that fuzziness as license to claim all sorts of unlikely things, which are not proveable.