White people will have sex with anything

[Shooter]

As for guessing, science makes a small-step hypothesis, but that is not called the truth until it is verified with experiments on the physical world.

There are no experiments that can verify many of the claims put forward by science, but they are put forward anyway. For many years, science said that birds were descendants of dinosaurs, and then one day (oops!) science changed its mind and said that birds were NOT descendants of dinosaurs.

One difference is that reasoning takes small steps from premise A to conclusion B, while religion makes large leaps of faith, often with emotion the guiding principle.

Who's talking about religion? I'm talking about the speculation that passes for "reasoning" in the scientific world. And those "small steps" are often leaps into the unknown . . .

 

[Shooter]

So, you reject all science because you think it's all just guesswork and speculation.

Uh, no. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Science is wonderful, but it has limits. Science has given us modern medicine, and computers, and all kinds of great things, but when we enter the realm of the distant past, and trying to discover what happened hundreds of thousands of years ago, science is inadequate.

 

[Minstrel]

For many years, science said that birds were descendants of dinosaurs, and then one day (oops!) science changed its mind and said that birds were NOT descendants of dinosaurs.

No. Not correct. Birds are still believed to have descended from dinosaurs because that's what the fossil record that God placed in the ground for us to discover indicates. There are those who believe otherwise, but that's not the mainstream belief.

That said, if your argument that science is bunk because beliefs change, it simply shows you don't understand the concept of science. Science, unlike religion, doesn't pretend to be a set of universal truths. It's the best predictive model of the world, that fits the known evidence, that humans have at any given point. If a superior model (superior based on predictive value and how well supported it is by verifiable evidence) comes along, science adopts that instead.

"Science" (there's no monolithic institution known as "science" as you seem to believe, but...) believed that physics followed a Newtonian model for many years because it was a model with great predictive power and explained the observations we could make. Then Einstein came up with a new model that fit better observations that were possible at that point and predicted the behavior of the universe better (though in most normal human situations, Newtonian physics still does a good job, so it suffices for people who aren't graduate physicists). If you think "science changing its mind" based on better evidence-based models is a mark against it, I think you're looking for something other than the best current knowledge.

And your needs are probably well-served by religion.

 

[barfo]

Uh, no. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Science is wonderful, but it has limits. Science has given us modern medicine, and computers, and all kinds of great things, but when we enter the realm of the distant past, and trying to discover what happened hundreds of thousands of years ago, science is inadequate.

You got a better tool? We could use that instead, if you do. Far as I can tell, science is the best thing we have for investigating things that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Science gave us those great things you list because some people didn't dismiss scientific investigation the way you do. The history of science is full of people saying that it's all poppycock and a waste of time. You are the follower of a grand, if misguided, tradition.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

Science is the union of rationalism (reasoning things out in your chair, using your imagination to think of the several forks in the road something can go logically) and empiricism (getting outside your mind and experimenting upon the physical world to verify which fork in the road, which mental construct of the many imaginable in the dimensions of the multiverse, represents this world, the one in which we randomly find ourselves).

The above definition was formulated in the middle of the millenium which just ended, when there were many revolutions, and many lives burned at the stake and tortured in Galileo's shackles, to overcome the religious Inquisitions which opposed science.

The structure of the last thousand years, the structure which eliminated from leadership all but the conquerors and warriors, was the continuing, nation to nation religious Inquisition. Revolutions made the information-gathering, torturous Inquisitions go underground and become the secret institutions they are today.

 

[jlprk]

In today's science news, I just finished watching the shuttle's last landing, and find that Hubble discovered a new moon of Pluto! Denny, you'll like this. I haven't read it yet.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/20jul_p4/

Okay, now I'll try a second time to post it. How can I not be logged in if I'm typing into the Quick Reply window? Here goes. I'll log out and then in and then repost.

Okay, I did that. Better click fast or it'll say I'm logged out.

 

[Targus]

Quack science! They concluded by factoring in assumptions. Bad science.

This, from live science, states how rare those breeding hotties really were.

http://www.livescience.com/5570-neanderthals-poised-extinction.html

This "science" article states neanderthals NEVER bread outside

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[Shooter]

No. Not correct. Birds are still believed to have descended from dinosaurs because that's what the fossil record that God placed in the ground for us to discover indicates.

Wrong. The fossil record indicates no such thing. That's why the theory was debunked years ago. Science is constantly making these kinds of claims, which have no basis in fact.

That said, if your argument that science is bunk because beliefs change, it simply shows you don't understand the concept of science.

You apparently don't understand the English language. I just said in a post above that science has accomplished all kinds of marvelous things, and made the world a better place. Who in his right mind would say science is "bunk"? It's these kinds of wild accusations that make you look stupid.

"Science" . . . believed that physics followed a Newtonian model for many years because it was a model with great predictive power and explained the observations we could make. Then Einstein came up with a new model that fit better observations that were possible at that point and predicted the behavior of the universe better."

Thank you for making my point. A great many of the assumptions that science makes about the way the universe operates, or what happened in the distant past, are later proven to be wrong. Instead of admitting that we don't know certain things, science comes up with theories, passes them off as accepted truth, and later revises them when it becomes clear they were wrong. Science used to believe that tomatoes were poisonous, that leeches were therapeutic, and that the world was flat. Time eventually proved them all wrong, of course.

And your needs are probably well-served by religion.

And your needs are probably well-served by the occasional enema.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

That book is full of speculation on where certain races come from, and how they got from one part of the world to another. None of it is provable, but the author has a good time anyway. It's a perfect example of the kind of speculation we are discussing. The author also maintains that the inhabitants of New Guinea are the smartest people in the world, which further illustrates the flaw in his methodology.

Interesting. Perhaps you should read the book instead of repeating what you've heard about it in a faux-academic way.

The book is criticized pretty extensively in the academic world, as should any book attempting to explain differences in culture, but not for Diamond's presumption of the course of human evolution, which is an accepted pretext to his analysis. It's also criticized pretty extensively by creationists (which is where I'm guessing you got your "analysis") because it is a controversial piece of literature having to do with some aspects of human evolution, which they can parade around as proof that science is wrong on evolution.

 

[Minstrel]

Wrong. The fossil record indicates no such thing. That's why the theory was debunked years ago.

The missing link between dinosaurs and birds, Archaeopteryx, was found in the 1800s:

Similar in shape to a European Magpie, with the largest individuals possibly attaining the size of a raven,[1] Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.[2][3] The features above make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.[4][5] Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.

Birds being descended from dinosaurs is still the mainstream belief, from everything I've seen.

In fact, even someone who disputes the notion that birds descended from dinosaurs said (in 2010) that it's the mainstream belief:

"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

You apparently don't understand the English language.

How mean! If I couldn't understand the English language, how could we be talking right now, engaging in this frank exchange of ideas?

Thank you for making my point. A great many of the assumptions that science makes about the way the universe operates, or what happened in the distant past, are later proven to be wrong

I made the common sense point that your "black mark" against science is actually what makes science the most widely accepted and respected search for knowledge: the fact that the scientific community works from the best theories possible from current evidence and will replace old models with proven better ones.

I know you prefer religious fervor, where admitting wrong is a sign of weakness, but science is happy to "be wrong" if it means a better model came along that advances human knowledge.

And your needs are probably well-served by the occasional enema.

Again, so mean.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If there were a giant dinosaur bird running around today there would be a white person wanting to have sex with it.

Most likely it would be a Canadian.

 

[Shooter]

Interesting. Perhaps you should read the book instead of repeating what you've heard about it in a faux-academic way.

I have read the book from cover to cover. Perhaps you should stick to what you know instead of making faulty assumptions, like many in the scientific world do.

 

[Shooter]

How mean! If I couldn't understand the English language, how could we be talking right now, engaging in this frank exchange of ideas?

You must have learned English in the last 5 minutes . . .

I made the common sense point that your "black mark" against science is actually what makes science the most widely accepted and respected search for knowledge: the fact that the scientific community works from the best theories possible from current evidence and will replace old models with proven better ones.

Exactly. Which means at any given time, science can be wrong. Science, however, seldom proceeds accordingly, admitting that everything is just theory until it can be proven. Instead, it advances its ideas as if they are fact, and the media generally swallows whatever they say. There are so many examples of this that it would take too much time to list them all . . .

I know you prefer religious fervor, where admitting wrong is a sign of weakness, but science is happy to "be wrong" if it means a better model came along that advances human knowledge.

You know nothing about me, and apparently very little about religion. Admitting that you are "wrong," at least in Christianity, is a very common practice, and something to be emulated. Indeed, confessing one's sins and asking forgiveness is part of the Christian creed.

Again, so mean.

Gee, I'm sorry. Maybe you should take a look at your own posts.

 

[barfo]

This "science" article states neanderthals NEVER bread outside

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

It is not necessarily contradictory that humans have neanderthal dna but neanderthals don't have human dna.
Maybe it's just the white women who slept with the neanderthals. White men weren't so interested in Raymond Felton.

barfo

 

[Shooter]

Similar in shape to a European Magpie, with the largest individuals possibly attaining the size of a raven,[1] Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.[2][3] The features above make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.[4][5] Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.

That's it? Because a bird has features similar to a dinosaur, it must have evolved from a dinosaur? Why is it not just as likely that the two species happen to share some common features needed for survival? "Jaws with sharp teeth?" "Fingers with claws?" Are you kidding me? ANY creature might benefit from having those characteristics, yet they are not evidence that one evolved from the other.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That's it? Because a bird has features similar to a dinosaur, it must have evolved from a dinosaur? Why is it not just as likely that the two species happen to share some common features needed for survival? "Jaws with sharp teeth?" "Fingers with claws?" Are you kidding me? ANY creature might benefit from having those characteristics, yet they are not evidence that one evolved from the other.

Is it the dinosaur to birds thing you have a problem with or evolution in general?

 

[Eastoff]

It is not necessarily contradictory that humans have neanderthal dna but neanderthals don't have human dna.
Maybe it's just the white women who slept with the neanderthals. White men weren't so interested in Raymond Felton.

barfo

It's basically the same idea with "white" people and "black" people. Let's look at P. Obama as an example. His mother was white and his father was black. And yet Obama looks black. In this example the white is neanderthal and the black is homo sapien/erectus/whatever.

 

[Eastoff]

Exactly. Which means at any given time, science can be wrong. Science, however, seldom proceeds accordingly, admitting that everything is just theory until it can be proven. Instead, it advances its ideas as if they are fact, and the media generally swallows whatever they say. There are so many examples of this that it would take too much time to list them all . . .

Well not everything is a theory. There are also Theories that are not really theories (note the capitalization). For example the Theory of Relativity is accurate for all things not in the quantum level. Would you agree that all matter is attracted to other matter, and call this gravity? Is this not a fact? If you are arguing that particle physics is not completely known, or that the half life of carbon dating is not accurate that is very different than saying "science is not very accurate." That's like saying all NBA players are bad because the Clippers are bad.

 

[Minstrel]

Exactly. Which means at any given time, science can be wrong.

I'll take it a step further. Science, at any given time, is ALWAYS wrong, if you're looking for eternal truth. Because science is not about truth. It's about the most useful models to allow us to function in the universe (make medicines, televisions, rockets, etc). It's inconceivable that any current model is the ultimate truth about the universe. That's not what science is about.

Science, however, seldom proceeds accordingly, admitting that everything is just theory until it can be proven.

Science admits that everything is just an empirical model. Further, nothing outside of mathematics (or linguistics, computer science or other human-created systems) can be proven.

Gee, I'm sorry. Maybe you should take a look at your own posts.

I'm not mean. I'm charmingly wry.

 

[Minstrel]

That's it? Because a bird has features similar to a dinosaur, it must have evolved from a dinosaur? Why is it not just as likely that the two species happen to share some common features needed for survival? "Jaws with sharp teeth?" "Fingers with claws?" Are you kidding me? ANY creature might benefit from having those characteristics, yet they are not evidence that one evolved from the other.

Well, I don't want to debate you on whether birds really evolved from dinosaurs because you clearly know your stuff and put forth a rebuttal far too technical for me to respond to.

However, I wasn't really arguing whether birds did or did not evolve from dinosaurs. I was pointing out that you were wrong about whether the scientific community mainstream has debunked or changed their belief about that.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I have read the book from cover to cover. Perhaps you should stick to what you know instead of making faulty assumptions, like many in the scientific world do.

You're right. I'll leave the discussions on evolutionary biology to experts such as yourself

 

[3RA1N1AC]

hey shooter, how long has there been life on earth?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

hey shooter, how long has there been life on earth?

Did you want that in god years or crazy science years?

 

[Shooter]

hey shooter, how long has there been life on earth?

Not sure. I do know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, however. I heard that in a science class once, so it must be true.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Not sure. I do know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, however. I heard that in a science class once, so it must be true.

Seriously Shooter who cares if people have different believes than you do. I know that some people who go by the bible believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I don't agree with that but it doesn't bother me a bit that they do.

 

[julius]

Not sure. I do know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, however. I heard that in a science class once, so it must be true.

well, I do know that the earth is 6000 or so years old. I heard that in my church, so it must be true.

 

[jlprk]

The Bible lists the great men and their ages. X begot Y, from whom was born Z. The ages are given in years? Or months? I forget.

When I was a kid, I learned that the time unit used then may have used the same word as now (years or months), but the terms meant much longer durations. A month then may have meant a year now. Like dog years.

So when the Bible says Methusaleh lived 762 years or whatever it was, he really lived 10 or 100 times as long. When you add up the years and it comes to 6000, the Bible's history of generations really goes back to whenever the first human was (e.g. 4 million years ago, when the article says we started to walk).

That's how they explained it when I was little. If it was good enough for us, it's good enough for all you young punks. Everyone's getting bored because we haven't started a war lately. Busy hands stay out of trouble.

 

[jlprk]

I'm not bald, but I know the Lord will kill you if you make fun of baldies.

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they shouted, “get out of here, baldy!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html

A good read.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I'm not bald, but I know the Lord will kill you if you make fun of baldies.