LoL, to me, that's the end of discussion.Ant. wrote:...
Sure, science gets many details wrong, and often has to change even it's biggest stories when the facts change. ...
But carry on!
Post by cambod » Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:36 pm
Ant. wrote:...
For example,
observation 1: 1 + 1 = 2
observation 2: 2 + 2 = 4
Therefore, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4.
...
Post by MoodyMac » Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:38 pm
Post by Chuangt2u » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:52 pm
cambod wrote:I can only imagine all the wrong crap science has come up with now that will have to be corrected in the future.
...
And please don't forget that the things you think are "CORRECT" now will probably be absolutely hysterical to even think about in 50 years!
Overall, I'm happy with the way science is "evolving", i just wish they'd have more blanks in their equations instead of just filling them with whatever "works" for the time being.
That irks me - it really gets my goat... especially when some CG twerp sets up filler scenes for Nat Geo that are replayed endlessly and from different angles. Yeah, we get it - you've a good imagination and a firkin huge computer in your office.Nasty Canasta wrote:The whole problem with this sort of thinking is that you get someone finding a small bone or tooth and constructing a dinosaur out of it. Books and museums all over the place are full of this extrapolation.
Post by Chuangt2u » Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:51 pm
Glad I did. Evolution at work in the soot-blackened, industrial north of England... my cradle.shitegeist wrote:Or you could just google Peppered Moths.
Post by Nasty Canasta » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:10 pm
Yep, it is weak, and it is a classic case of evolutionists continually moving the goal posts. Of course, we are so close to monkeys, that we use pig organs to keep us alive. I think of evolutionary thinking as like a giant chessboard that they keep on making bigger and bigger, with ever increasing complex moves needed that attempt to cover what isn't understood, but never getting closer to checkmate, the end point. I remember watching a TV show where the presenter was explaining how sheep had evolved from dolphins (perhaps it was dolphins from sheep), you've gotta be kidding me, I find The Simpsons more believable.Jacked Camry wrote:Regarding the "transitional fossil" argument, I think this is a fairly weak one in my opinion. As you can see from the various ape species, just because Homo Sapiens was able to branch off from the ape tree, that didn't mean that the apes all disappeared. Instead, a group of apes who's DNA mutations eventually provided them with a comparative advantage split off and continued evolving in a different direction, while the apes they split from carried on and probably also mutated in other directions to produce other sorts of apes or monkeys with other adaptations more suited to their environments.
Post by cambod » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:36 pm
Carbon dating 60ish years? That I can buy. It has been documented/verified. Fair enough. 4 billion years? In 4 billion years we can FINALLY verify that too. It may, or may not be right. We will have to wait and see.shitegeist wrote:...
Cambod, scientists don't carbon date rocks so much, we carbon date the remains of once-living organisms. New dating methods (and carbon dating is 60+ years old) are carefully cross-checked against a range of samples of precisely known age, in order to help ensure their accuracy. I could go on.
...
Post by flying chicken » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:41 pm
Post by Nasty Canasta » Sat Jul 21, 2012 10:29 am
The peppered moth. Great argument for evolution! Here is a moth doing exactly what it was designed to do, being a moth. The argument is so robust that every so called creationist has defected to the evolution camp.Chuangt2u wrote:Glad I did. Evolution at work in the soot-blackened, industrial north of England... my cradle.shitegeist wrote:Or you could just google Peppered Moths.
Can't say I noticed the moths, though.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
Post by Chuangt2u » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:06 pm
You're saying that the ability to adapt to an environment is part of the design?Nasty Canasta wrote:A far more reasonable view is that the peppered moth is doing exactly what peppered moths always have done, and that is, being peppered moths! Nobody had bothered to notice before.
Post by Kpal » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:13 pm
Post by Nasty Canasta » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:17 pm
I'm saying that animals adapt to their surroundings. Foxes in England have adapted to living in towns and villages, you can even see them near Heathrow Airport. Similarly, in South Africa leopards are known to live in the sewer systems. No surprises there at all, just like people, animals adapt to their surroundings be it extreme cold or extreme heat, they continue being the same animal.Chuangt2u wrote:
What's your take on this one then, Nasty?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... World.html
Field notes blog link
http://scientistatwork.blogs.nytimes.co ... -stiassny/
Post by Nasty Canasta » Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:26 pm