Real or just to thinking9136
 Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by X51Neal Adams could be quite correct actually Hard to satisfy the burden if evidence required with the hypothesis. My thought reading your post is that you are conflating multiple disciplines as paleontology. The quibbling about past man is constant as you suggested but that is archaeology not paleontology so I agree that discipline shows massive infighting ..the fighting I see in paleontology is mostly attributable to the extremely difficult nature of the work. Imagine trying to solve a murder where all the witnesses are dead as is everyone that ever knew them. All the evidence and the crime scene itself have been left outside in the rain for anywhere from 300- 65 million years. There are bound to be some conflicting translations and just as a courtroom does...it requires time and alot of viewpoints to build a solid consensus that meets all evidence and passes all challenges Even then you are going to have the fringers who endlessly argue conflating all evidence to meet their own agenda. For instance the bandit's...(BIRDS ARE NOT DINOSAURS ) I also admire anyone who subscribes to regular science articles and attempts to stay up on the facts!!our world needs more like you in this regard Sir |
||
| Post 351 • IP flag post | ||
about science, it was an still interesting concept for me to ponder.
 Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock
|
Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSoth No, *science.* Not based on faith, based on science. You are the one who is talking about literal myths that you believe based on your faith. That's the definition of any religion, actually. Christian faith isn't evidence-based ... it's not reliant on proof. You just accept it, because (circular reasoning alert) the bible tells you to. Oh, wait! You meant "myth" in a derogatory way, didn't you? Like you previously accused Darkseid of doing to you? No, "myth" doesn't mean that. It's just a way to describe a story, like a creation story. It's not derogatory. It's just a word. Unless you don't know what it means and you have a penchant for jumping to conclusions and you think any contradiction is a personal attack. If that's the case then, yeah, calling religion a "mythos" would probably be insulting. |
||
| Post 352 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Buzbe Prooth is in the pucking. |
||
| Post 353 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
X51 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town Paleontology is indeed a complicated mystery. The problem I have with it is that assertions are made and presented as fact when they are still working theories. Did an asteroid really kill all of the dinosaurs? They still don't know. Watch any educational show directed at kids and it's touted as fact. |
||
| Post 354 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by MR_SigSso much this to the infinty. Religious supression of man's knowledge has been disastrous. Hence the entire period known as ...The Dark Age |
||
| Post 355 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
Buzbe private msg quote post Address this user | |
| And a note for all the fact searchers, a negative action can be measured as a gain. Point to he you understand is a straight line graph (three point in total, one is the base/or start point, while the other are point moving equally away from the center | ||
| Post 356 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Buzbe private msg quote post Address this user | |
| One is negative one positive but both gains are movement away | ||
| Post 357 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Buzbe private msg quote post Address this user | |
| BE ALIVE LIVE THINK SMILE | ||
| Post 358 • IP flag post | ||
|
Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock
|
Tedsaid private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Buzbe Well, in this context, "junk" wasn't derogatory. It's just an easy way to label and remember a concept. Like "Big Bang." It wasn't actually a bang noise; just a big explosion. And not the way we usually think of an explosion, since it affected / created space-time, and all that. Anyway, if you understand people when they say they roll up a window, or dial a number, then you'll probably be okay with "junk DNA" as a stand in for "non-replicative DNA." Sure, it's useful. But not in the way that DNA is usually used. |
||
| Post 359 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by X51and again right on point but lets take your example about the supposed bolide impact that ended the dinosaur reign. So you are a Hollywood producer. You will do a special on the demise of the dinosaurs. What brings more viewers? A death dealing chunk of rock the size of Long island smashing into Earth and killing nearly every living thing or " A series of Marine regresssions complicated by an ongoing and reoccurring eruption of the entire Deccan trap system and them exacerbated by the impact of at least five massive objects similtaneoualy. The blame falls more on the people who choose your television programming in that one |
||
| Post 360 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Buzbedepending the context of this it can displayed as either true or false ..consider the premise..absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In this case a negative point does nothing to shape the game parameters Evidence for god should be simple but the lack of evidence is not verifiable as evidence of his absence |
||
| Post 361 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
X51 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| The sensationalistic assertions also get carried over into genuine science articles. The science articles I do read are often trying to grab research dollars for funding. | ||
| Post 362 • IP flag post | ||
 I don't believe this....and I know you don't care that I don't believe this.
|
GAC private msg quote post Address this user | |
A miracle of this thread is no one got suspended! Congrats to all participants.  ......and it wasnt locked. |
||
| Post 363 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Buzbe private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GAC Lol weeeeee |
||
| Post 364 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Anyone see the show (on Nova or Science Ch) a few years back where a paleontologist theorized many of the smaller fossils thought for years to be unique species are actually infant remains of established species? I haven't heard anything about it since, but it makes enough sense. Skeletal structure changes with age, | ||
| Post 365 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by X51because.magazines work similar to television. Get yourself on a site where you can have direct access to science papers. One I am fond of is wikipaleo on Facebook as you can request a paper provided you have a valid citation rather than being caught by paywalls |
||
| Post 366 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GACgive me.a.chance GAC. I'm still typing |
||
| Post 367 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by MR_SigSsolid science here..ontological or sexual dimorphism could be responsible for as many as one in ten suspect new species or species of dubious status. Solid point A lead advocate of these ideas is Jack Horner now retired, but the original dinosaur consultant for the Jurassic Park movies...he has expressed the idea that triceratops and torosaurus are the same individual at different growth stages along with another lineage of animals....pachycephalosaurus, and its closest species relatives also being stated as sub adult and adult versions of the same species. In regards the triceratops theory he has been pretty heavily destroyed on that one..the latter he seems to have nailed it however. Oops I forgot. Someone said all a fossil tells you is something died. My bad |
||
| Post 368 • IP flag post | ||
|
I don't believe this....and I know you don't care that I don't believe this.
|
GAC private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by Darkseid_of_town LOL!!!! |
||
| Post 369 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
X51 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GAC It's difficult for me to have a problem with a person over religion because I was a self-professed Agnostic for about 10 years. Am I supposed to get upset with someone not believing something when I didn't believe something? Nah. |
||
| Post 370 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
X51 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| It's possible that I have imagined everything in the world and that none of you are real. My imagination was done in such depth that everyone I'm responding to thinks they are real. If that's the case, I must've been really bored. | ||
| Post 371 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| figured I would share this one , because people have suggested paleontologists guess mostly... this is a limb section from a large sauropod...in technical terms we do not call them leg bones because the front limbs are considered arms...and since we have no sure method for determining if this section belonged to front or back...a limb section. When I found it, there was nothing of the prominent feature inside visible, but I felt it was worth investigating. As it was sliced into, the result was a feature within that is quite stunning but also provides quite a bit of the taphonic circustances surrounding this dinosaurs carcass. The large white and colored area is a section of the center of the bone where it rotted...likely lying in water or above ground for an extended period. As the marrow rotted, it allowed the webbing to collapse within the cavity demonstrating how the bone lay for millenia.Subsequently the white blade like structures formed, called Barite, or Barite Blades, a crystalline structure that forms within hollows in given circumstances...agate then infilled the remaining hollows. Such preservational relics are rare and highly sought after...this piece is quite valuable, although when found and brought home it was pretty non-descript. To also clarify all images I present of dinosaur bone specimens are from my personal collection as well as provided images. I can verify they are as pictured, and were found or were prepped and repaired under my watchful eye or by people I directly work with to know it was done correctly and nothing has been altered, faked or otherwise ……..placed in any doubt   |
||
| Post 372 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I meant to ask during the conversation about whale limb bones. I had asserted they were evidence of a previous species of the animals that had lived and walked on land but returned to the sea....the implication was made because whales use the bones for secondary purposes they would not be considered vestigal ..but even then wouldn't they still be atrophied weight bearing limbs originally used for mobility thus solidly validating whales had been a land dwelling legged species that adapted to life underwater instead? I am unsure how the argument made the bones are used for birthing or reproduction alters the fact they were once legs ....essentially if your body has anything it can use it will ...for secondary purposes even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus " Along with other members of Ambulocetidae, it is a transitional fossil that shows how whales evolved from land-living mammals. " someone needs to get ahold of wiki and explain that no transitional fossils exist and this animal is a lie for real. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03 and this is a real mess, the even show the entire lineage of whales ...all those transitional species..the very nerve of these people to imply transitional fossils exist or all those animals could evolve. |
||
| Post 373 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| wiki really needs to clean it up...here is the page on horses showings step by step each and every transitional animal that wasn't a modern horse, until it became one..... we should withdraw donations from wiki for telling the truth like this...it isn't fair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse even fish...I mean wow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_fish look at all those transitional steps between the Devonian and modern age , its almost like they were actually changing or something … and then elephants of course....look at all the ancestral basal species before them....but of course those aren't transitional species right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant#Evolution okay so even plants evolved? there are transitional plants? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants at least it wasn't wiki this time..but cmon even cats? http://cat-evolution.weebly.com/evolution.html housefly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housefly In giraffes seven prehistoric species already extinct...and those would be transitional from prehistoric animals to modern giraffes then ….. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffe zebra stripes anyone? https://www.thoughtco.com/evolution-explains-zebra-stripes-1224579 Tweety bird and company....notice this quote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds There is significant evidence that birds emerged within theropod dinosaurs, specifically, that birds are members of Maniraptora, a group of theropods which includes dromaeosaurs and oviraptorids, among others.[4] As more non-avian theropods that are closely related to birds are discovered, the formerly clear distinction between non-birds and birds becomes less so. This was noted already in the 19th century, with Thomas Huxley writing: We have had to stretch the definition of the class of birds so as to include birds with teeth and birds with paw-like fore limbs and long tails. There is no evidence that Compsognathus possessed feathers; but, if it did, it would be hard indeed to say whether it should be called a reptilian bird or an avian reptile.[5] even those damn bugs evolved... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_insects well one thing for sure, definitely no transitional fossils and I think all this information was somehow faked as a liberal conspiracy....things do not evolve right?Hard to believe wiki sleeping on the facts like that ..wow |
||
| Post 374 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
MR_SigS private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hey, this thread is only 6 days old. We're not supposed to rest until tomorrow. | ||
| Post 375 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by MR_SigS 7 is the Lord's number.  |
||
| Post 376 • IP flag post | ||
 Collector
|
VaComicsGuy private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Fossil records and transitional states have NOTHING to do with the existence (or lack of existence) of a deity or higher power. Science guy: Look I can prove that this T-Rex turned into a chicken by way of evolution. Therefore, there is no God. Religious guy: Nope, Evolution is how God did it. Evolution does not prove (or disprove) anything that is based in faith anymore than accounting tells me how to paint my house. |
||
| Post 377 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by GanaSoth I actually mostly agree with what you are saying, but its still incorrect and badly slanted so let me help you with it. First , the entire discussion about big bang and evolution vs god triggered from this posting...recognize it? This is where the initial comments were made and notice please it is religion attempting to deny science..because..god. SO when science defends itself, all the elegant whining about flag planting and science having to allow for the possibility of god etc....are sadly out of place and attempting to argue from that corner is ....to say the least a transfer of blame . Moving forward, lets take your stated analogy...which is badly stated in an attempt to humiliate science...but let me adjust it for you to fit facts. Science guy: Look I can prove that avian dinosaurs evolved into three cladeforms that were the ancestral species to all modern aves including chickens. We can assert this based on fossil, genetic, dna and cladistic evidence. We dispute creation as the possible mechanism given the lack of proof of any creational master being,at this time, of any form.Given the burden of evidence supports evolution we suggest this as the likely mechanism for the origin of modern aves. We submit these fossils, these tests, and these images as evidence . All responses are WELCOME and will be responded to with proper scientifi method, thanks Religious guy" Nope evolution is how God did it...(which could be 1000 percent correct since we have no evidence for a creator, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.However there is no evidence AT THIS TIME TO SUPPORT THIS LINE OF ASSERTION The line of assertion remains open but not supported by evidence.If you disagree with us you will be publicly attacked, excommunicated, burnt at the stake or shamed for daring to defy religious dogma Again since you worry about flag planting so much...science never seeks to prove anything, they seek to build the best possible answer based on the presented evidence..once more evidence presents a new hypothesis is formed to allow for any new data. Evolution need not prove anything, it isnt a goal...and honestly your example lacks because... when you paint your house you cannot buy paint, stripper, brushes and sandpaper, tarping, rollers and etc without first...checking your budget, doing the accounting work to determine your financial abilities and limits, so even within your own example, yes accounting affects your house painting...it doesnt tell you how, but based on your financial state it will help shape your paint and prep choices . Also and most importantly we have watched you throw a fit about allowing the possibility god exists, and that science is guilty of flag planting, while othes have raved and ranted there is no evidence for transitonal species nor evolution. In each case science makes a conclusion, or offers a theory we are met with staggering demands for evidence, more evidence and then repeated evidence ...validation. Meantime we are besieged with the argument we must allow for this possibility and that, this myth or that to be true or this biased pseudo science to work when it wont. So shouldnt religion face the same burdens? the same proof requirements? the same incredibly detailed examination of each and every supernatural conclusion asserted?If religion states, there are no transitonal fossils shouldnt they offer any form of evidence beyond podcasts filled with ranting assertions about aliens and faces on Mars? Shouldnt religion by its own standards imposed on science be required to document, provide evidence and peer reviewed study for every single attack on science, evidence and established theory? We are not living in the dark ages where scientists can be excommunicated or shamed for disagreeing with religious dogma...shouldnt it be an even playing field? I agree with your argument that science and god are not exclusive to one another, but then again that was never the point of this discussion since it began and is a straw man argument you have run up the pole to alter the terms of the debate.I stated early on that god is a possibility and science HAS to allow that possibility.The argument has been the attempt to discredit science and deny evolution and big bang theory based on....religion. Move past it, noone here is refusing to accept god could exist, god could have created or god could have used evolution to shape the fauna around us....my point from the beginning has been the science is verifiable, real and exists for big bang and evolution....you can place that within a biblical context if thats what makes your soul smile..im fine with that. Oh and almost forgot...   |
||
| Post 378 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
GanaSoth private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Darkseid_of_town ok that's your opinion(s). I have mine you have yours. Great. | ||
| Post 379 • IP flag post | ||
|
Collector
|
Darkseid_of_town private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I couldn't agree more. Everyone has right to their own belief or understanding. I can respect that...You are welcome to your beliefs and ideals, and for me I prefer the science, evidence , hypothesis thing. | ||
| Post 380 • IP flag post | ||
Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.