Members banned from this thread: katzgar


Page 120 of 131 FirstFirst ... 2070110116117118119120121122123124130 ... LastLast
Results 1,786 to 1,800 of 1957

Thread: Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

  1. #1786 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    45,502
    Thanks
    13,781
    Thanked 20,105 Times in 15,763 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,132 Times in 2,090 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    For that you need triple-slit.
    Triple slits could be fun too. Wasn't that one of Riley Reid's movies?
    Stripping Americans of their rights, regardless if unalienable or unenumerated, is against American ideals

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Dutch Uncle For This Post:

    AProudLefty (06-17-2021)

  3. #1787 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    41,590
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 8,598 Times in 7,040 Posts
    Groans
    424
    Groaned 1,534 Times in 1,477 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Triple slits could be fun too. Wasn't that one of Riley Reid's movies?
    For over 4 million dollars, it had better be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    Nah, he'll be right there, willing to give his spleen right now because he signed a card. "Here's my papers, sir!" He'll say as he proves to his beloved government and the super desirable government tracking program that HE at least is perfectly capable of carrying the right papers at all times and that super benevolent Federal government programs deserve his immediate and prolific obedience!

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    Dutch Uncle (06-17-2021)

  5. #1788 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    36,140
    Thanks
    18,020
    Thanked 24,465 Times in 12,676 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,322 Times in 2,087 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    But the wave deal is that the electromagnetic radiation oscillates, no? And that shit propogates throughout the universe where there is no solar win.
    Interferometers connected by computers from arrays countries apart detect radiowave propagation a zillion miles away. That is not riding solar wind.
    I am not 100 percent sure, but I think it has to do with field theory...the reason it propagates is that a moving electrical field induces a moving magnetic field, which in turn induces the moving electric field, and so on, and so on...aka, the fields self-propagate

  6. #1789 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    41,590
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 8,598 Times in 7,040 Posts
    Groans
    424
    Groaned 1,534 Times in 1,477 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Triple slits could be fun too. Wasn't that one of Riley Reid's movies?
    Yes you are correct. That is why she is rich.

    Quote Originally Posted by Damocles View Post
    Nah, he'll be right there, willing to give his spleen right now because he signed a card. "Here's my papers, sir!" He'll say as he proves to his beloved government and the super desirable government tracking program that HE at least is perfectly capable of carrying the right papers at all times and that super benevolent Federal government programs deserve his immediate and prolific obedience!

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to AProudLefty For This Post:

    Dutch Uncle (06-17-2021)

  8. #1790 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    47,958
    Thanks
    13,840
    Thanked 30,839 Times in 20,327 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,268 Times in 1,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    No one who looks at the fossil record, and the four million year progression of hominids from Austapithicus to anatomically modern humans has the slightest problem understanding homo sapien sapiens evolved from earlier forms of hominids.
    Well, that doesn’t answer the question.

    But the answer is ‘no’. It’s not possible to be objective about interpreting fossils.

    Why do I get the idea I’m the only actual skeptic here lol? I don’t claim to know exactly how we got here and I’ve played this game from both sides of the debate. Though I am a Christian I think there’s some merit to the argument that interpreting Genesis limits God in a sense.

    The problem with allowing an infinitely omnipotent Being into the equation is that He could play tricks with time, for example. Once I concluded that, I was liberated. I don’t ‘need’ anything to be true because evolution doesn’t prop up my belief system. Nor does it prop up my unbelief. Evolution functions as a hedge against religion and Christianity in particular.

    But in my mind they are two totally separate realms of thought. So I’ll sit here and poke holes in it just to entertain myself.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  9. #1791 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    36,140
    Thanks
    18,020
    Thanked 24,465 Times in 12,676 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,322 Times in 2,087 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Well, that doesn’t answer the question.

    But the answer is ‘no’. It’s not possible to be objective about interpreting fossils.

    Why do I get the idea I’m the only actual skeptic here lol? I don’t claim to know exactly how we got here and I’ve played this game from both sides of the debate. Though I am a Christian I think there’s some merit to the argument that interpreting Genesis limits God in a sense.

    The problem with allowing an infinitely omnipotent Being into the equation is that He could play tricks with time, for example. Once I concluded that, I was liberated. I don’t ‘need’ anything to be true because evolution doesn’t prop up my belief system. Nor does it prop up my unbelief. Evolution functions as a hedge against religion and Christianity in particular.

    But in my mind they are two totally separate realms of thought. So I’ll sit here and poke holes in it just to entertain myself.
    Acknowledging scientific uncertainty and asking well framed questions is being a skeptic.

    Denying evidence right in front of one's face is being a denier.

    I have no idea what the precise relationship is between. Austapithicus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens meanderthalis, and Homo sapien sapiens is.

    It is an are of active research, and the odds are there was no one simple stepwise evolutionary genealogy, but a mosaic of inbreeding and cross pollination between archaic human subspecies or variants.

    But there is not a single reasonable person who could look at the four million year record of archaic human variants leading up to anatomically modern humans, and not be able to recognize evolutionary progression is in play.

  10. #1792 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    36,140
    Thanks
    18,020
    Thanked 24,465 Times in 12,676 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,322 Times in 2,087 Posts

    Default

    Move over, DNA: ancient proteins are starting to reveal humanity’s history

    Proteins dating back more than one million years have been extracted from some fossils, and could help to answer some difficult questions about archaic humans.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01986-x

  11. #1793 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    47,958
    Thanks
    13,840
    Thanked 30,839 Times in 20,327 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,268 Times in 1,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Acknowledging scientific uncertainty and asking well framed questions is being a skeptic.

    Denying evidence right in front of one's face is being a denier.

    I have no idea what the precise relationship is between. Austapithicus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens meanderthalis, and Homo sapien sapiens is.

    It is an are of active research, and the odds are there was no one simple stepwise evolutionary genealogy, but a mosaic of inbreeding and cross pollination between archaic human subspecies or variants.

    But there is not a single reasonable person who could look at the four million year record of archaic human variants leading up to anatomically modern humans, and not be able to recognize evolutionary progression is in play.
    It helps to assume that human evolution has occurred. As pointed out—and as you tacitly conceded, interpreting fossils is a subjective enterprise. If one *assumes* evolution they are more apt to ‘see it’ in the fossils.

    I can’t think of another area of science that operates that way.

    And it’s not your fault the Australopithecus——> Man sequence is jumbled. Australopithecus was clearly a kind of ape like animal but the rest are quite arguably human. The one real test of speciation is the interfertility test: if a Homo erectus could mate with a Homo sapiens and produce fertile offspring—they are the same species. But that experiment is impossible so we are forced to speculate.

    There is *plenty* to be skeptical about with evolution. And it’s broader and more ‘ambitious’ claims would probably be rejected except there’s nothing to replace it with. At least nothing that can be considered given science’s commitment to philosophical naturalism.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  12. #1794 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    32,071
    Thanks
    5,260
    Thanked 13,858 Times in 9,667 Posts
    Groans
    98
    Groaned 2,917 Times in 2,684 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Acknowledging scientific uncertainty and asking well framed questions is being a skeptic.

    Denying evidence right in front of one's face is being a denier.

    I have no idea what the precise relationship is between. Austapithicus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens meanderthalis, and Homo sapien sapiens is.

    It is an are of active research, and the odds are there was no one simple stepwise evolutionary genealogy, but a mosaic of inbreeding and cross pollination between archaic human subspecies or variants.

    But there is not a single reasonable person who could look at the four million year record of archaic human variants leading up to anatomically modern humans, and not be able to recognize evolutionary progression is in play.
    No, only willfully unreasonable ones. That is the problem we have in education versus nonsecular myth indoctrination. They are irreconcilable.
    The wall between church and state needs to be impenetrable. Church should be studied only as an object in public schools.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    Cypress (06-18-2021)

  14. #1795 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    36,140
    Thanks
    18,020
    Thanked 24,465 Times in 12,676 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,322 Times in 2,087 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    It helps to assume that human evolution has occurred. As pointed out—and as you tacitly conceded, interpreting fossils is a subjective enterprise. If one *assumes* evolution they are more apt to ‘see it’ in the fossils.

    I can’t think of another area of science that operates that way.

    And it’s not your fault the Australopithecus——> Man sequence is jumbled. Australopithecus was clearly a kind of ape like animal but the rest are quite arguably human. The one real test of speciation is the interfertility test: if a Homo erectus could mate with a Homo sapiens and produce fertile offspring—they are the same species. But that experiment is impossible so we are forced to speculate.

    There is *plenty* to be skeptical about with evolution. And it’s broader and more ‘ambitious’ claims would probably be rejected except there’s nothing to replace it with. At least nothing that can be considered given science’s commitment to philosophical naturalism.
    All areas of science include subjectivity, opinion, and speculation.

    Repeatability and self-correction are generally what set science apart from other intellectual endeavors.

    Fossils are hard, tangible data. They can be directly observed, measured, compared, tested.

    The higgs boson, quarks, and quantum entanglement cannot be observed or even directly detected. No one one has ever seen them. We can only infer their existence by indirect detection and higher mathematics.

    I am pretty sure anatomically modern homo sapiens did not overlap in time with homo erectus. To the extent we have homo erectus DNA, it was not by direct procreation, but passed down a genetic pathway through intermediate variants of archaic humans.

    I do not see how a reasonable person, using their mental faculties of induction and inference, could possibly look at the four million year record of a progression from archaic human variants up to anatomically modern homo sapiens and still declare that biological evolution is in grave doubt.

  15. #1796 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    32,071
    Thanks
    5,260
    Thanked 13,858 Times in 9,667 Posts
    Groans
    98
    Groaned 2,917 Times in 2,684 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Originally Posted by Darth Omar
    It helps to assume that human evolution has occurred. As pointed out—and as you tacitly conceded, interpreting fossils is a subjective enterprise. If one *assumes* evolution they are more apt to ‘see it’ in the fossils.


    I'm sorry, this is just pathetic. You have no hand. Fold already.


    No, it is NOT subjective. Observing relative differences in objects and similarities between them is NOT subjective. Get out a fucking ruler a measure the distance between your big toe and your prehensile tail,
    same as a Gibbon's right? That is not subjective.

    Religion is inimical to science and that's why you are engaged in a futile attempt at apologetics.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    Cypress (06-18-2021)

  17. #1797 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    32,071
    Thanks
    5,260
    Thanked 13,858 Times in 9,667 Posts
    Groans
    98
    Groaned 2,917 Times in 2,684 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    All areas of science include subjectivity, opinion, and speculation.

    .
    Only in the sense that everything whatsoever, when perceived is subject to the point of view of the observer. There is not a gap for god to slip into with this truism.

  18. #1798 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    36,140
    Thanks
    18,020
    Thanked 24,465 Times in 12,676 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 2,322 Times in 2,087 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Only in the sense that everything whatsoever, when perceived is subject to the point of view of the observer. There is not a gap for god to slip into with this truism.
    Theists are fighting a losing battle trying to fit God in the gaps of various and sundry scientific theories.

    Those gaps are always closing.

    A better question theists could pose, is where did the universe's laws of physics come from? Why does order rather than chaos underlie them? And why is there something rather than nothing?

    Those are genuine metaphysical questions, and if I were looking for providential design those are the questions I would ask.

  19. #1799 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    32,071
    Thanks
    5,260
    Thanked 13,858 Times in 9,667 Posts
    Groans
    98
    Groaned 2,917 Times in 2,684 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Theists are fighting a losing battle trying to fit God in the gaps of various and sundry scientific theories.

    Those gaps are always closing.

    A better question theists could pose, is where did the universe's laws of physics come from? Why does order rather than chaos underlie them? And why is there something rather than nothing?

    Those are genuine metaphysical questions, and if I were looking for providential design those are the questions I would ask.
    Those are the perennial questions they do ask, but some pervert them and try to shove them in my kids school textbook a la
    Kitzenmiller v Dover. (sp?) Yes agreed, they should stick to philosophy.

    The relative degree of chaos v order is something I am unconvinced about either way, as to which may predominate.
    So I find the fact that there is enough order for us to "know things" and frankly, predict anything let alone
    everything, does not suggest a designer in any way. The reasoning becomes circular and unsolvable immediately.
    Well if we only knew more we would know more. Why don't we know more? The is not enough order? Therefore there is no god?
    The corollary is equally unappealing intellectually. So I file that question in my debate while enjoying adult beverages file.
    I'm no longer in philosophy 101 and stopped smoking dope in college.

    I will offer this, if there were a god who wished us to know him, he would have hired better advocates on earth.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Micawber For This Post:

    Cypress (06-20-2021)

  21. #1800 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    32,071
    Thanks
    5,260
    Thanked 13,858 Times in 9,667 Posts
    Groans
    98
    Groaned 2,917 Times in 2,684 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    I am a Christian..... So I’ll sit here and poke holes in it .
    That's all we needed to know. If you wanted to entertain yourself you'd poke holes in the bible. Much more entertaining.

Similar Threads

  1. Public Schools are Visiting the Creation Museum on Field Trips...
    By christiefan915 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-26-2016, 01:23 PM
  2. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 08-13-2013, 09:50 PM
  3. 10 Terrible Things Republicans Will Try......
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-29-2010, 12:31 PM
  4. Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Creation Museum
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 12-04-2009, 06:16 PM
  5. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-11-2007, 09:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •