Real or just to thinking9136
 Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| WEird, tried to edit and it made a duplicate post... | ||
| Post 226 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Thanks for sharing that information Etapi...especially the part about how much work and time it takes to type out complex science spanning hundreds of years and involving dozens of disciplines. Someone at least gets it, thank you | ||
| Post 227 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Hcanes private msg quote post Address this user | |
| IBTL | ||
| Post 228 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
VaComicsGuy private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town and that "evidence" could be anything including the existence of a God or a wizard behind a curtain telling you to ignore him or nothing at all. ...Get that? Apparently you don't because you seem to firmly entrenched in a God doesn't exist, science is the best and most likely way position. Seems that true science would at least allow for the possibility. Quote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Can't speak about anyone else but I'm all about questioning everything including religion. Some of the most religious people I know struggle with their beliefs on an almost daily basis. Not everyone believes things blindly. Quote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_townUm, Ok. but that's not even remotely close to what she said. she said it's a guess. You changed "a guess" to "the best possible and most likely true answer." Quote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town How about another family guy reference. That answer insists upon itself. science is the best possible answer according to . . . ? According to people that believe that science is the best possible and most likely answer. Lots of people disagree with that sentiment, including the list of 11 Nobel laureates and other world renown scientists I listed earlier. Are they wrong? Do they not understand science? Quote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_townI hate to break it to you but my point that you apparently missed is how often science is wrong and reverses course. Science Knew brontosaurus existed, then oops it didn't, then it did again but in different genus, then didn't, now does again. question: which of those should I have believed? The point: Scientific knowledge is wrong quite often. Is it possible, even remotely that scientific knowledge is wrong about some religions and religious beliefs? Quote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_townUm, science doesn't know this at all in fact several prominent paleontologists currently disagree about this. which scientist should I believe? Science is not a thing, It's a process that is used to explore the unknown. Any unknown. I've already said that I have no problem with anyone believes or doesn't believe. I do have a problem with people saying we should "believe" the science. I haven't stated what I personally believe. I'm simply pointing out that real science and scientists allow for at least the possibility of the unknown, including the existence of a divine being, Creator, Entity. . . |
||
| Post 229 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
VaComicsGuy private msg quote post Address this user | |
Keeping it comic related.    |
||
| Post 230 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Point by point then...fair enough, evidence for god. Please provide it...put it on the table now,publish your evidence and proceed straight to get your Nobel Peace prize...until then you are not offering EVIDENCE...you are offering speculation right? Science does allow for the POSSIBILITY a god exists but science also requires that little word evidence...evidence is transparent verifiable and repeatable. If you do not have that, it isnt evidence and you do not have it. Noone does...and thats why science is the best path for now until or unless evidence is presented. Possibility allowed for yes, but evidence to date zeroe . . . that is religion..creating rules that cannot be questioned . . . My point in stating religion has rules that cannot be questioned is precisely the above..you can question science using evidence, but when you question religion its called blasphemy. I am glad you are able to question things and understand that religion is frail construct...but for many when you question their chosen belief set, it triggers a cognitive dissonance and they entrench and argue even more stubbornly. umm what I said about your family friend was me giving her the benefit of the doubt when she may have been misquoted or mistated the terminology incorrectly. I said it right regardless and since she isnt here I will restate it for you. Science is the process of providing the most plausible explanation for existing evidence that best fits all kown evidence, until further evidence is presented. Science is NOT a guess, hence the use of EVIDENCE. You evaluate all known factors, length, width duration , speed, anything relevent...a guess does not...a guess is a guess...science isnt into guesswork....science proposes a hypothesis, which is then published and submitted for peer review and ample time allowed for challenges and responses....if you think scientists guess at things, you have never read a peer reviewed published science paper before nor understand the concept of multiple lines of evidence testing and cladistics, multiple methods of analysis and finally the hours spent determing potential outcomes. A guess is when you close your eyes an say..hmm well maybe that one....so you are quite correct, I changed the word guess to a term more proper and fitting. The amusing thing about your family guy quote is ..it doesnt work....science is true regardless what you choose to believe....argue with gravity and jump off a building, bet you science wins, you fall and gravity is again established as fact even if you did not believe in it..understand...science does not rely on your belief to be both binding and accurate. If you see a pot of boiling water and argue oh..heat cannot hurt me..stick your hand in it...guess what? You get burnt...science is truth that does not require belief and it doesnt matter who denies anything for what reason without solid evidence. Would like to see your list of nobel laureates and see what they supposedly disagreed with about science...name by name and case by case...I think that would be a fun challenge, also please provide each persons unique criteria for being a nobel laureate... I am sure if you took any time to investigate what you are trying to propogate here you already know many people given that award were less than deserving and history hasnt been kind to some of them..so lets see your list and their supposed feuds with science...lets see that evidence. Okay so here we again..lets take Brontosaurus....science wasnt wrong and you arent really getting this at all. Science offered the best answers at that time and given the evidence they had.....once more evidence presented itself they altered their conclusion to meet additonal information. That is precisely what intelligent people do daily...they alter their positions or ideals based on new information. The ideal they held yesterday wasnt wrong...it was the BEST POSSIBLE ANSWER AT THAT TIME FOR THE KNOWN EVIDENCE. Let me fix this for you since you have done a solid job of mucking it up..Brontosaurs is not a genus and never was, it is a species that was speculated to rest within Diplodocoids....new evidence presented that suggested it was not a unique species but simply Apatosaurus restored with the skull from a Camarasaurus......however using modern cladistics and further study science feels confident that Brontosaurus was a seperate SPECIES than Apatosaurus nested within Diplodocoids. Question...which of those do yoou believe... Response ALL of them in order...each was the best possible at the answer given all the known data and to believe otherwise without new evidence would be foolish. That is what intelligent people do..they alter their thinking and ideals based on when new information is offered in the form of evidence.. Is it possible science is wrong about religion and god and so forth? Yes , of course...BUT....two thousand years now and no evidence for a creator, the more questionable biblical events or creationism...I am thinking thats a long time to hold an idea with nothing to support it....no merit, no data, no firsthand accounts that are verifiable, and no direct witness accounts. I myself will go with science and the current understanding of it. okay so feathers on dinosaurs....lets do that next. Since the early seventies exploration of fossil remains in an area of China known as the Xixian basin has yielded amazing fossils so well preserved the world has never seen anything remotely similar...here are pictures of some of the finds there......names like yutyrannus, and tianyulong and at least 76 others have become household names..in fact avian dinosaurs were more closely related to birds than dinosaurs. This is documented science and is easily researchable.Science does know this, and is quite solid on the facts.... And this is where you should listen and understand closely....yes there are a group of paleontologists who are debating the feathers are not feathers, but rather quills or preservation relics or anything else..because..to acept otherwise would be factual evidence of evolution. These denialsts are known as BANDITS in the science community...they are neither prominent nor in many cases paleontologists....Feducci being the most prominent....literally the problem with arguing a belief over evidence again so obviously illustrated. Take the time and google and learn about the animals from china being found. More than 78 fossil species of dinosaurs with feathers, quills or both.... As for which scientist you should believe...again and again...follow the evidence not the belief....78 fossil dinosaurs have feathers....lemme see....and this guy over here who has an axe to grind about evolution says....those arent feathers, they are strands of protein oozing from the fossil...you follow whom you choose.... Science can be a thing, a process, a person or even an ideal...it isnt used to explore the unknown, thats an explorers job. Science is used to UNDERSTAND the unknown..to collect the evidence, to test it again and gain and then to try and offer a If you want to explore the unknown go climb mount everest....if you want to understand the unknown take up chemistry or biology or sedimentology. Oh and yes we absoloutely should believe in science as we sit in our smug little heated and cooled homes, with out cars in the driveway and use our computers and phones all using processes and ideals found or discovered through science. ....you dont get to eat the fruit and drink the milk then deny the source sorry. Damn conveinant you sit in the midst of all science has given you and say..oh maybe we should trust it... I do agree science should and does allow for the possibility of religion or a creator...but I also understand science well enough to accept allowing for a possibility and attempting to deny based on it are two seperate animals...science allows for the possibility of anything, but science also requires data an evidence for those claims. Creators and religions all deal in faith and offer none....can you ee where that goes? Believe what you like and think as you will , its your right...but understand the difference between a possibility and a tested or studied theory and a guess .         You asked which scientist to believe...I offer you should believe the evidence you can see and study rather than that which you cannot. |
||
| Post 231 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town This. |
||
| Post 232 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
CatCovers private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by OGJackster I had a copy of this when I was a kid. No idea what ever happened to it. |
||
| Post 239 • IP flag post | ||
 Forum Crier
|
OGJackster private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by CatCovers Me too. I have no idea what I did with it. |
||
| Post 241 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by VaComicsGuy I agree with this. As I stated earlier, I lean towards science, but was raised Christian. I'm open to the possibility that all the science we see is how God does it. Since I believe time is relative, I can see our reality as being like a Civilization like game program to a being like "God". 13 Billion years in the blink of an eye. I believe in Life Out There. If God exists, I don't think He would outright inform people thousands of years ago. Can you imagine the insane jealousy this petty species (us) would feel? In fact, we'd probably already be space bound by now, just so we could go to war with these others who God couldn't possibly love as much as us. We've proven ourselves to be this petty many times. If there is intelligent life out there, we'll never meet it unless they've already been space bound for millions of years on there way here. That means they'd have to know millions of years ago that we'd be here to meet now. Maybe they're on their way to go to war with these others who God couldn't possibly love as much as them.  |
||
| Post 242 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
doog private msg quote post Address this user | |
I have one of these on my wall, my only Christian comic |
||
| Post 243 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
VaComicsGuy private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town That's an interesting approach. Quote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Already did that and provided a link. Guess you missed that. Quote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Criteria for being a Nobel Laurate? They received the Nobel award. https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination-and-selection-of-nobel-laureates/ Maybe this will help you out. Quote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Here, Let me help you out since you seem to have done a solid job of mucking it up. Show me where I said Brontosaurus was A Genus and I'll give you a prize. What I actually said was it was IN a different genus. But hey, close enough right? Quote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_townHmmm, seems like that's my whole point. Quote: Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_townLike Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Mendel, Boltzmann. . . ? |
||
| Post 244 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by VaComicsGuyits an interesting but valid approach yes...as for your supposed list and link, yes I missed it entirely actually. I asked you for a list of the people who were nobel winners and what their criteria was for disagreeing with science itself was...interesting approach though. Here, Let me help you out since you seem to have done a solid job of mucking it up. Show me where I said Brontosaurus was A Genus and I'll give you a prize. What I actually said was it was IN a different genus. But hey, close enough right? You said brontosaurs was in a different genus..that would mean it IS a different genus since it was the sole holotype fossil for it's species..l.just as if you as a human were in a different genus you would be that genus because not only would you be a different species but your own genus unless you were place within an occupied genus which is unlikely given the existing members to compare with. ..so yes close enough..in fact 100 percent correct thanks. Point is you not only were wrong, you were dead wrong, and you are trying to hide behind semantics to cover it now..interesting approach though. yes the possibility there is a god was your whole point, without evidence , facts, data or a single shred of anything to attempt to argue that possibility into a fact ...yes that was your entire point...interesting approach though. oh yes...Like Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Mendel, Boltzmann. .only without any evidence, or proof like they had and despite the fact all evidence is contrary to their point unlike Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Mendel, Boltzmann. .but hey close enough right? |
||
| Post 245 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by MR_SigSgreat points. Many people miss out on the concept that everything that happened in the Torah..Quaran and Bible all occurred within a 400 mile circle of the middle East roughly 3000- 2000 years ago and these apparent God's in no so far documented way never chose to interact with another grouping nor time period of people. I somehow believe a universal creator would speak to a universal prople. Even the concert we are the crowning species and that everything must be about us is amusing. It is suggested the language or method dolphins use to speak contains more than 400 characters. If all humans and all ants were weighed the ant would win. Cockroaches have existed unchanged for 350 million years Mankind has been something approaching at the farthest reach 2 million years ago but we claim we are the central and pivotal characters. Dinosaurs held Earth for 250 million years and.likeky would still be the dominant species but for a chance sequence of natural disaster Regarding life out there we likely already met it but are stuck on ourselves and insist Life.may not adhere to the rules we seem determined to.impose and we.may have found it already and missed it alll life must follow our path |
||
| Post 246 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Had to start somewhere. Now look, it's Global! There's the Universal Creator you're looking for. |
||
| Post 247 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Invalid assumption and logical.fallacy. Did not have to start somewhere. A universal creator could have started everywhere. | ||
| Post 248 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Invalid assumption for trying to think too much into it. There is only one Jesus. If you wanna get down to it, the fossil records go against evolution. It doesn't support it at all. |
||
| Post 249 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| There is no such thing as thinking too much. We also know there were hundreds of people named Jesus. The census records we have demonstrate it ..since we spent the last forty posts determining science needs to be open to the possibility of God and religion shouldn't religion then in all logical arguments allow for the possibility of science and evolution? Why is science being held to a higher standard than religion? | ||
| Post 250 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| The Fossil Records Disprove Evolution One of the best pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. Ever heard of the phrase "say a lie enough times people will believe it." Well, being that the fossil record goes against evolution, atheist/evolutionists like to make it work for them by screaming it's proof. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution never occurred! Evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms and this is simply a lie. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A "true transitional form" would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing. Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms? You evolutionist always say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. (You said it in an older post.) The Bible states in Genesis that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (not change into another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism. |
||
| Post 251 • IP flag post | ||
 -Our Odin-Rest in Peace |
Jesse_O private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Just an observation - why has no one mentioned the Indian (as in country) religions? Hinduism and Buddhism are two or the largest religions. That's not even mentioning the various offshoots, tribal religions and numerous other belief systems out there. | ||
| Post 252 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
etapi65 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSothQuote: Originally Posted by GanaSoth I don't know where you quoted this from. It's wrong. There are transitional forms. There are also, both rapid, and slow evolution from the perspective of geologic time, though I'm not sure what your definition of rapid and slow are (on what time scales they're operating). It depends on "generations"; or, how long is the reproductive cycles. I'm assuming you understand some organisms may take 20 years for a "generation" while others may be days or weeks and for many microbes even shorter. Read the book "the Beak of the Finch" for evidence of transitional forms. Or, articles like https://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6208/463 They are scientific evidence of evolution. There are transitional forms in the fossil record. You're just wrong in how you're describing the science. Or rather, the quote you've not sourced and taken from somewhere is wrong and is simply ignorant of the science. You can also look up the experiments by Mori on fruit flies...and I can't locate it at the moment in my files (it's one of many relayed in the book "Beak of the Finch"  , but a similar experiment took a species of fly, used their phenotype to isolate various genotypes and over decades only allowed said flies to reproduce within those now isolated populations. They recorded genetic change at every stage and documented transitional stages after (I believe 30 years...may have been 20, why I was trying to find the paper) they took individuals from both populations and put them back together. They were not able to reproduce. In otherwords the genetic change that had occurred by isolating these two phenotypes had, indeed lead to a new species incapable of reproducing with the original species. This is evolution from a scientific definition. Again, you're simply wrong because you have no idea of where the science on this is, currently (this is at least 20 year old findings on the flies). Similar, short term experiments are the basis of freshmen/sophomore level genetics labs at universities for biology students. |
||
| Post 253 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Marximus private msg quote post Address this user | |
| It's only a matter of time before Bigfoot makes an appearance... | ||
| Post 254 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by etapi65 Hahaha. That's called adaptation.... It never evolved into any other species. Its still a "bird." Stop using lies to try to promote your evolution. Show us proof of fossils with transitional forms. |
||
| Post 255 • IP flag post | ||
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.