No

(05-25-2009 07:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The fossil is supposed to be a link between primates and other mammals, not between humans and other primates.

And where is the proof that humans have always been humans and apes have always been apes?

Well for your first question, they are surely ramping it up that this little guy is a well detailed reason to orgasm over the Kinship of Man and Ape. So when they calm down and take some Salt Peter and catch the correct perspective on this thing, then we will hear about what a nice little monkey skeleton it is.

As for your 2nd Question, I am a Bible Reading Christian and it is funny how I have been told that God Created man in his Own Image and gave Man Dominion over ALL the Beast of the Earth and then God created Eve ... the one Beast Adam could not sway Dominion over and thus we suffer it to this very second.

Adam, the man, named ALL Beast ..... Monkeys, Apes, Chimps, etc etc ....

Man has always been man and beast have always been beast.

And I shall not argue my beliefs since I just stated them plainly.

.

(05-25-2009 07:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-19-2009 05:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Vox Day has a great thread going on this.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/05/falsification.html

Frankly it has "scam" written all over it. But even if it's real, what's the big whoop? They found a lemur w/ monkey-like skeletal features. Uh, ok. They've been finding new species of animals all over the world. If you're an adamant evolutionist, this offers nothing to validate your point. If you're looking for research dollars, it's a good headline.

Of course, so were these

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxi...iff_Giant/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa...n17189091/

Is it your opinion that no fossils can provide any evidence for evolution?

Not exactly. But fossil evidence will be evaluated based on a person's preconceived views. If you want to see evidence of macro-evolution, you'll likely see it. If you don't, you'll find holes.

Evolution is very tautological in its approach to data.

Much of this "science" is very different from traditional work. Usually scientists test their theories w/ empirical evidence, gained from experiments designed to constrain the variables being assessed. Evolution and cosmology do not have that ability (nor do some other fields like climatology, planetary geology, etc). That doesn't make them less interesting or worthy of study, however the claims by such participants are usually hyped and exaggerated...often to the point of scholastic dishonesty.

And that's the biggest problem w/ these disciplines, or rather the participants in these disciplines. Becasue their exaggerated claims, w/ the inevitable exposure, takes away from all scientific endeavors, and because so much of society is founded on truth, it hurts everybody.

(05-26-2009 10:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-25-2009 07:47 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(05-19-2009 05:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Vox Day has a great thread going on this.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/05/falsification.html

Frankly it has "scam" written all over it. But even if it's real, what's the big whoop? They found a lemur w/ monkey-like skeletal features. Uh, ok. They've been finding new species of animals all over the world. If you're an adamant evolutionist, this offers nothing to validate your point. If you're looking for research dollars, it's a good headline.

Of course, so were these

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxi...iff_Giant/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa...n17189091/

Is it your opinion that no fossils can provide any evidence for evolution?

Not exactly. But fossil evidence will be evaluated based on a person's preconceived views. If you want to see evidence of macro-evolution, you'll likely see it. If you don't, you'll find holes.

Evolution is very tautological in its approach to data.

Much of this "science" is very different from traditional work. Usually scientists test their theories w/ empirical evidence, gained from experiments designed to constrain the variables being assessed. Evolution and cosmology do not have that ability (nor do some other fields like climatology, planetary geology, etc). That doesn't make them less interesting or worthy of study, however the claims by such participants are usually hyped and exaggerated...often to the point of scholastic dishonesty.

And that's the biggest problem w/ these disciplines, or rather the participants in these disciplines. Becasue their exaggerated claims, w/ the inevitable exposure, takes away from all scientific endeavors, and because so much of society is founded on truth, it hurts everybody.

Not to change the subject, but I'm curious what you have against cosmology in particular. They do have cosmological theories, and they do collect data from satellites such as WMAP or COBE that have confirmed theories. They've also predicted abundances of elements and the existence of particles that had not been found yet. They've discovered that the universe isn't what it appears to be based on stars moving too quickly in the outer regions of galaxies, by collecting empirical evidence. Unless you don't believe in the doppler shift.

Sometimes findings can get overhyped, but much of that is done by the media, which doesn't understand science and doesn't have the proper caution in their statements.

If your theories are able to predict experimental results, there's a good chance you're on to something, even if you can't constrain the universe and rule out every other possibility.

(05-26-2009 02:14 AM)Tripster Wrote:  

(05-25-2009 07:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The fossil is supposed to be a link between primates and other mammals, not between humans and other primates.

And where is the proof that humans have always been humans and apes have always been apes?

Well for your first question, they are surely ramping it up that this little guy is a well detailed reason to orgasm over the Kinship of Man and Ape. So when they calm down and take some Salt Peter and catch the correct perspective on this thing, then we will hear about what a nice little monkey skeleton it is.

As for your 2nd Question, I am a Bible Reading Christian and it is funny how I have been told that God Created man in his Own Image and gave Man Dominion over ALL the Beast of the Earth and then God created Eve ... the one Beast Adam could not sway Dominion over and thus we suffer it to this very second.

Adam, the man, named ALL Beast ..... Monkeys, Apes, Chimps, etc etc ....

Man has always been man and beast have always been beast.

And I shall not argue my beliefs since I just stated them plainly.

.

Trip,

I do not always agree with your posts, but you hit this one out of the park.

(05-27-2009 05:01 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  Trip,

I do not always agree with your posts, but you hit this one out of the park.

Thank you !!!!

I know that we have had our moments in differing opinions, so this is truly a welcomed reply ...

.

Quote:Their “logic” for the formation of the Grand Canyon itself requires a subsequent flood to go uphill 30 river miles before it gets to the Kaibab Plateau, and then somehow collapse a path across the Kaibab. If you look at topographic maps, this of course is impossible. However, if you are willfully ignorant, minor details such as understanding topographic maps are irrelevant, and the only requirement is faith in Noah’s Flood. It would be interesting to see what kind of inventiveness they could come up with to explain why the Green River cuts through Split Mountain instead of going around it.

The Angular Unconformity in the Grand Canyon

(05-27-2009 08:51 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

Quote:Their “logic” for the formation of the Grand Canyon itself requires a subsequent flood to go uphill 30 river miles before it gets to the Kaibab Plateau, and then somehow collapse a path across the Kaibab. If you look at topographic maps, this of course is impossible. However, if you are willfully ignorant, minor details such as understanding topographic maps are irrelevant, and the only requirement is faith in Noah’s Flood. It would be interesting to see what kind of inventiveness they could come up with to explain why the Green River cuts through Split Mountain instead of going around it.

The Angular Unconformity in the Grand Canyon

Yes ..... I can see how all of your Cartoons Make me and the Little Chimp Skeleton linked in every way.

You have changed my mind, I now believe we all Evolved from Trees and I will never believe that silly Bible Stuff Again !!!!!

Thank you for all your fantastic help in this area ....

Carbon Credits Accepted for all Donations to the Tripster Reaffirmation Fund !!!!!!

.

(05-26-2009 10:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Much of this "science" is very different from traditional work. Usually scientists test their theories w/ empirical evidence, gained from experiments designed to constrain the variables being assessed. Evolution and cosmology do not have that ability (nor do some other fields like climatology, planetary geology, etc). That doesn't make them less interesting or worthy of study, however the claims by such participants are usually hyped and exaggerated...often to the point of scholastic dishonesty.

This is not true with respect to cosmology. And, of course, Ponds and Fleischman demonstrated that scholastic dishonesty is a characteristic of individuals, not disciplines. The ability to get away with it does of course vary by discipline and specialty.

Regarding cosmology, scientists don't get to toss around celestial bodies to create experiments. But, they do have large numbers working to their advantage, and the ability to select what they observe as a "proxy" for direct experimentation. You often throw the "scholastic dishonesty" card at will and usually cite anecdotal evidence. Do you have any metrics to back it up, or do you just think that only dishonest people go into disciplines like biology? Or that prima facie the only honest ones are the ones that share your world view?