Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

[Micawber]

would risk falling into the croc pit over ‘the high level of confidence’ in the hypothesis that man is descended from an anatomically inferior subhuman.


Anatomically inferior? I'm not even sure I understand what that means. If you are an animal and alive, you are anatomically equal by Darwinian measure.

I sure fucking would, so long as there was an upside reason to do it. I'd do that for $20 or more. It's an absolute fact. .0000001 risk of getting eaten

 

[BidenPresident]

That's fine with me. Be faithful to your religion, leave it out of things like public schools where we all may have different
faiths or none at all. Science is not a religion, science is not a faith. Make all the skeptical snarky observations you would like.
I'd rather that not be a trojan horse to insert the cloud guy as a reasonable option for understanding the natural world.

Is there an "unnatural world" that interacts with this one? Who knows, but the scientific method doesn't shed light on that idea.
It certainly undermines those beliefs as time goes along since "the age of reason" on forward.

I won't ever say you don't have the right to say or think "God did that," unless you are in my kid's classroom.

Well said. Faith is just ignorance. Keep it to yourself where it can only harm yourself.

 

[Micawber]

Your analogy of a civil lawsuit indicates you think it is less than 50 percent likely that anatomically modern homo sapiens evolved from archaic human species.

Wow.

That is a position only the most die hard science denier and Liberty University graduates would adopt.

Since you are talking odds now, what do you think the odds are that a providential creator created several dozen human species independently during a miraculous creation event and having no genetic evolutionary links bewtween them?

or that a giant flood engulfed the earth and two of every fucking species lived on a boat a family made. Even Vegas doesn't take action that exotic.

 

[Micawber]

There is enough evidence now to say with an extremely high level of confidence that homo sapiens evolved from anatomically archaic forms of hominids. It would easily pass muster in a court of law, even over your demands for a complete genome map of homo habilis.

Hilarious, these modern day Homo Sapiens are ironically arguing Scopes 100 years later, thus proving they are indeed the missing links and we are evolution in action!

 

[Micawber]

Well said. Faith is just ignorance. Keep it to yourself where it can only harm yourself.

So true, faith is a lazy do-loop. Basically it's a coat check for your mind before entering the debate restaurant.
Sir, would you like to check your brain before sitting down for the meal? Why yes. Then just say I have faith in God, screw this evidence.

 

[BidenPresident]

So true, faith is a lazy do-loop. Basically it's a coat check for your mind before entering the debate restaurant.
Sir, would you like to check your brain before sitting down for the meal? Why yes. Then just say I have faith in God, screw this evidence.

We know grass, people, and clouds exist. But why is the most powerful force in the universe--God--only an object of faith?!

 

[Cypress]

or that a giant flood engulfed the earth and two of every fucking species lived on a boat a family made. Even Vegas doesn't take action that exotic.

It is fine to ask skeptical and well-framed questions about human evolution.

A lot of things we thought we knew 50 years ago turned out to be wrong.

But the basic overarching tenet that anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens evolved from archaic species of humans is beyond any reasonable scientific doubt.

I am starting to think that to the extent Republican posters have any college background at all, it involves Liberty University.

The remaing questions on hominid evolution involve mechanism, timing, divergence, and genetic relationships. We are dowm in the weeds at this point, but we will undoutedly discover many new things, and existing hypotheses will fall by the wayside.

 

[AProudLefty]

College physics for me was >30 years ago, but I am sure a vector value and centripetal acceleration can be derived from Newtons law of gravitation and his second law of mechanics.

Yep. It's quite simple.

 

[Micawber]

It is fine to ask skeptical and well-framed questions about human evolution.

A lot of things we thought we knew 50 years ago turned out to be wrong.

But the basic overarching tenet that anatomically modern homo sapien sapiens evolved from archaic species of humans is beyond any reasonable scientific doubt.

I am starting to think that to the extent Republican posters have any college background at all, it involves Liberty University.

The remaing questions on hominid evolution involve mechanism, timing, divergence, and genetic relationships. We are dowm in the weeds at this point, but we will undoutedly discover many new things, and existing hypotheses will fall by the wayside.

I disagree with statement 1. I think it is fine to ask questions like what meaningful evolutionary distinctions and similarities lie between dinosaurs and modern birds,
or how sure are we that an asteroid caused dino mass extinction and not lava. But questions about the validity of evolution itself has been long put to bed as a serious one amongst scientists.

Point blank, there is NO creditable alternative theory for the change of biological forms over time. Period, full stop.
It's not evolution or God, or evolution or devolution, its not evolution or dark matter from the edge of the universe is mutating dna.

Evolution by random genetic mutation and natural selection for traits that increase chance of survival is the only scientific explanation that works.
We can understand what the "random" is better. Learn about cancers, free radicals etc. but these religious mutants won't shed any light.

 

[Cypress]

I disagree with statement 1. I think it is fine to ask questions like what meaningful evolutionary distinctions and similarities lie between dinosaurs and modern birds,
or how sure are we that an asteroid caused dino mass extinction and not lava. But questions about the validity of evolution itself has been long put to bed as a serious one amongst scientists.

Point blank, there is NO creditable alternative theory for the change of biological forms over time. Period, full stop.
It's not evolution or God, or evolution or devolution, its not evolution or dark matter from the edge of the universe is mutating dna.

Evolution by random genetic mutation and natural selection for traits that increase chance of survival is the only scientific explanation that works.
We can understand what the "random" is better. Learn about cancers, free radicals etc. but these religious mutants won't shed any light.

I guess I did not frame the post cleary. There are many outstanding questions about evolution ( mechanism, divergence, genetic relationships, phylogeny) but the basic over arching tenet of biological evolution is secure and well established.

The Cambrian explosion is still an area of reasearch and speculation.

 

[Into the Night]

This is Newton's second law of motion.

Not Newton's law of gravitation. Pivot fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Something is lacking with ITN, heh.

How do you measure velocity? Please tell me.

Newton's law of gravitation has no term for velocity. pivot fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

You can carry the droplets along with you. They survive on surfaces for extended periods of time.

I do not have the flu. I cannot infect anyone. I do not have Covid19. I cannot infect anyone.

 

[Into the Night]

You nailed it with the problem in the US of people how reject credible scientific evidence. Notice that those who reject scientific evidence are doing so for religious and/or political purposes and not using the brains God gave them.

There is no such thing as 'scientific' evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Evidence is just evidence. There is nothing 'scientific' about any evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

For sure.
I do not categorically rule out the possibility of providential design..

I am starting to have my doubts about the theist's claims on fine tuning, however.

And I do not think physicists have really done a good job articulating the uncertainties about the big bang theory.

We literally cannot observe time and creation past the veil of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which limits our direct observation of the observable universe at about 380,000 years after the big bang. It will be interesting to in the future if any experimental tests will be possible to infer the existence of a multiverse. Which would put us right back to what natural philosophers thought 200 years ago -- time and space are infinite.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not a theory of science.
A multiverse means there is no universe, since it is not universal.

 

[Into the Night]

College physics for me was >30 years ago, but I am sure a vector value and centripetal acceleration can be derived from Newtons law of gravitation and his second law of mechanics.

There is no '2nd law of mechanics'.

 

[Into the Night]

Somebody in the rightwing media trotted out that fallacy of authority argument 20 years ago,

Fallacy fallacy, There is no false authority fallac6 made by Darth here.

and science deniers have been running with it ever since.

Since you deny science, you have been arguing Christianity??

Expertise and scientific consensus matter.

Science does not use consensus. Only religions and governments do.
Science is not 'expertise' or experts. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

And you put your faith in scientific consensus every time you go to the doctor, take a prescription drug, or give a blood sample.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

You are your buddies on this thread have denied carbon isotope dating,

It has it's problems, particularly in speculations made by it.

denied evolution by natural selection

Natural selection builds a paradox. You are being irrational again.

denied the evidence for evolution of anatomically modern homo sapiens from archaic human subspecies.

Nah. It's just that it's not a theory of science. It's a religion.

That is not healthy scientific skepticism. That is dogmatic denial.

Science is not religion.

And when painted into a corner you demand science offer you an impossible level of proof -aka, complete DNA samples from homo erectus.

Science has no proofs. Science is not religion.

There is enough evidence now to say with an extremely high level of confidence that homo sapiens evolved from anatomically archaic forms of hominids. It would easily pass muster in a court of law, even over your demands for a complete genome map of homo habilis.

Science is not a courtroom. Science has no juries or judges. Science has no voting bloc. Science does not use consensus. Only religions and governments do that.

 

[Into the Night]

F is a force of acceleration vector defined by the product of mass and acceleration.

F in the universal law of gravitation can be replaced by ma. The small m's on either side of the equation cancel out, resulting in a direct calculation of gravitational acceleration, using the universal law of gravity and the second law of mechanics.

F=ma is not Newton's law of gravitation.
There is no such thing as a '2nd law of mechanics'.

 

[Into the Night]

Your analogy of a civil lawsuit indicates you think it is less than 50 percent likely that anatomically modern homo sapiens evolved from archaic human species.

Science isn't a casino. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. It's a religion.

Wow.

That is a position only the most die hard science denier and Liberty University graduates would adopt.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You are not God. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy (bigotry).

Since you are talking odds now, what do you think the odds are that a providential creator created several dozen human species independently during a miraculous creation event and having no genetic evolutionary links bewtween them?

Math error. Failure to declare randX. Failure to declare boundary.

 

[Into the Night]

Well said. Faith is just ignorance. Keep it to yourself where it can only harm yourself.

WRONG. Faith is just another word for the circular argument. The circular in and of itself is not a fallacy. Trying to prove one True or False is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.