Australian Politics Forum - The Missing Link...

locutius

Gold Member

Offline

You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #75 - May 28^th, 2009 at 1:16pm

Yadda, considering the wealth of acummulated, consistant and progressive knowledge that is available through literature, television, radio and in front of your very eyes; backed up and cross referenced through many disciplines of science and people of high intelliegence and learning. As opposed to (I'll assume well meaning) the imaginative stories of goat herders 5000 years ago.

I think there is not a damn thing I could say to you that could make you see things any other way than the way you do now.

Yes science changes it's answers because knowledge is progressive, look at technology as an example. So what you see as a flaw, "science changing it's mind" is in actuality science's great strength and validation. It is very simple.

Do you want me to admit that the predicted date (47 mill) of the evidence could be wrong? Sure I have no problem with that consideration. That would happen because our understanding of the facts as we know them change as well as those facts being constantly rechecked. I don't use the word facts here in an absolute sense, rather a working concept in flux. The fossil might be 100 million or 20 million years old.

Yadda
Quote:

Science only postulates its current understanding, and hypothesises [i.e. theories].

Yes exactly, and it is progressive. Part of the reason that we are talking to each other with the help of controlled electrical curcuitry instead of over a trading blanket with both of us doing our best to stay upwind of each other is progress.

Yadda
Quote:

If you travelled back in time 500 years, and told a community of ppl in the UK, that a Jumbo jet weighing 400 tons, could fly through the air, you would have been burnt at the stake as a witch!

That is very true, but it would have been at the hands of the religious. AND I would have been right. Them burning me however would not have made the claim untrue though.

Yadda
Quote:

Take it as read, mankind is not the font of all knowledge and wisdom!

At this current juncture, yes that is again true. But I think it achievable given enough time. We're on the right track.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 28^th, 2009 at 1:25pm by locutius »

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21785
A cat with a view

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #76 - May 28^th, 2009 at 2:13pm

locutius wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 1:16pm:

Yadda, considering the wealth of acummulated, consistant and progressive knowledge that is available through literature, television, radio and in front of your very eyes; backed up and cross referenced through many disciplines of science and people of high intelliegence and learning. As opposed to (I'll assume well meaning) the imaginative stories of goat herders 5000 years ago.

I think there is not a damn thing I could say to you that could make you see things any other way than the way you do now.

Yes science changes it's answers because knowledge is progressive
, look at technology as an example. So what you see as a flaw, "science changing it's mind" is in actuality science's great strength and validation.
It is very simple.

locutius,

That, is an assertion
, which you may make.

But is it can be demonstrably shown that, often times, it is only the scientific 'heretics' of their age, that are the ones who apply such a methodology of 'scientific process' to facts and evidence.

Entertaining the thought that science, and its 'holy relics' [hypothesises] are wrong, is often 'unthinkable'.

I can agree, that true 'scientific process' is progressive.

But the problem is, when we come upon human 'intellect', human pride, and 'vested interests' [those who are able to make money out of the current scientific assumptions], very little new knowledge can be accepted by the current 'experts' in their field.

Quote:

Yadda
Quote:

Take it as read, mankind is not the font of all knowledge and wisdom!

At this current juncture, yes that is again true. But I think it achievable given enough time. We're on the right track.

Really?

I would rather say that from previous experience we can be sure that we are being led to undetermined and questionable 'destination', by our own self-pride, in our accomplishments and knowledge.

If you doubt such a conclusion, just look at the current state of mankind's affairs, worldwide.

Yes, in the last several thousands of years, we [mankind] may have accumulated a vast amount of knowledge.

But are we [mankind] any wiser
?

I think not.

"Right is only in question between equals, and while the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."

Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) Greek Historian

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21785
A cat with a view

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #77 - May 28^th, 2009 at 2:27pm

locutius wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 1:16pm:

Do you want me to admit that the predicted date (47 mill) of the evidence could be wrong? Sure I have no problem with that consideration.
That would happen because our understanding of the facts as we know them change as well as those facts being constantly rechecked. I don't use the word facts here in an absolute sense, rather a working concept in flux. The fossil might be 100 million or 20 million years old.

locutius said,

".....The fossil might be 100 million or 20 million years old."

So, there may be an 'error factor' of plus or minus 40 million of years then??

Oh really???

Well if you can make that concession [that there may be, an error factor of plus or minus 40 million of years], can you concede that the fossil may be, even, another 20 million years younger?

i.e. Why can't this fossil be, say, 4 thousand years old???

Hmmmmm????

locutius,

I am not being facetious, in suggesting this.

I think that suggesting that this fossil may be 4,000 years old, is quite within the realms of possibility.

Can you prove
that such a suggestion is ridiculous???

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Amadd Gold Member Offline Mo Posts: 6217	Re: The Missing Link... Reply #78 - May 28^th, 2009 at 3:48pm Quote: i.e. Why can't this fossil be, say, 4 thousand years old??? Hmmmmm???? 4,000 years!!! I doubt if it's even possible to get a fossil that young. Sam Newman is older than that.
Back to top	IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21785
A cat with a view

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #79 - May 28^th, 2009 at 4:01pm

Amadd wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 3:48pm:

Quote:

i.e. Why can't this fossil be, say, 4 thousand years old???

Hmmmmm????

4,000 years!!! I doubt if it's even possible to get a fossil that young.

Amadd,

You are mistaken.

After being taught at school that it takes millions of years for fossils to form, you, and many others have made fallacious assumptions about the 'age of dinosaurs'.

N.B.
Under the right environmental circumstances, dead organic material can 'fossilise' [petrify] in under 20 years.

That is proven FACT.

i.e. It has been proven [observed to happen], SCIENTIFICALLY.

Quote:

.

.....it has been proven, that petrification of organic material can take place, in less than 20 years.
http://hissheep.org/evolution/proof_of_rapid_petrification.html
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5179/

Google,
rapid petrification
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=rapid+petrification&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Think of the consequences of this *fact*, on our understanding of the age of [dinosaur] fossils.

at...
"Multiculti - preserve cultural id amid enemies"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1242606209/51#51

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

locutius

Gold Member

Offline

You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #80 - May 28^th, 2009 at 4:36pm

I can make a concession that scientists and people can be mistaken. I think it is very likely that the fossil is the age they say it is, considering that experts far beyond my enthusiastic but unqualified interest, would have taken great care in it and complementary evidence.

I think almost anything is possible but that there are degrees of likelihood. 4000 years old? No, I think I have more chance of winning division 1 Lotto 52 weeks in a row than of this being 4000 years old. I'll put my trust in science.

I accept the possibility that I might be wrong about God. But I don't believe it. That's just me, I like evidence and for God there is none. If you have personal evidence then congratulations but you need to accept that it is ultimately unsharable and unverifiable.

I believe with conviction that the universe is 10's of billions of years old and the Earth billions, that it being here is no more astounding than if it had not been here, there is no afterlife, and that the universe follows cold impersonal laws, nonetheless that there can still be great meaning in what we can strive for even though the universe will probably just fizzle out.

Back to top

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

IP Logged

locutius

Gold Member

Offline

You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #81 - May 28^th, 2009 at 4:44pm

Yadda, it is more than just about what it takes to create fossils. That's why I say complimentary evidence. Continental drift, mountain forming, other geological considerations. The outer planets and the sun. Speed of light and the age of trees.

What is it about science that contradicts what you believe? Do you really take Genisis literally? Do you really think God could have so little imagination?

Back to top

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #82 - May 28^th, 2009 at 6:30pm

Quote:

After being taught at school that it takes millions of years for fossils to form, you, and many others have made fallacious assumptions about the 'age of dinosaurs'.

The dating of fossils and how long they took to fossilise are two different matters.
You may be correct that organic materials are able to petrify under specific conditions, that's if the "scientific evidence" that you rely on is also correct.
I suppose Noah just didn't have room for the dinasaurs on his ark hey?

Back to top

IP Logged

tallowood

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6048

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #83 - May 28^th, 2009 at 7:36pm

Amadd wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 12:16am:

Quote:

Yes, just like the lost link looks more modern then most atheists Grin

But not quite as modern as the Shroud of Turin hey? Wink

You guys believe anything.

It is very amusing to see how atheists unsuccessfully try to own Darwin as one of them exposing themselves as empty duds without spirit or intellectual capacity of their own. Instead the nature of atheism becomes clearer by observing historical deeds of mass murdering and despotism of the real atheists such as Stalin, Mao etc.

But then again, atheists will suck anything to prove themselves as valid alternative to theism. Wink

Back to top

ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים

IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #84 - May 28^th, 2009 at 11:17pm

Quote:

It is very amusing to see how atheists unsuccessfully try to own Darwin as one of them exposing themselves as empty duds without spirit or intellectual capacity of their own. Instead the nature of atheism becomes clearer by observing historical deeds of mass murdering and despotism of the real atheists such as Stalin, Mao etc.

But then again, atheists will suck anything to prove themselves as valid alternative to theism. Wink

What is really amusing is how those who believe the words of the bible word for word label those who don't as "athiests" and throw them all into the same basket.
Could it be that the inherant capacity of the steadfast believers is too overstretched to fathom that the so called "athiests" come in a vast array of opinions, experiences and ideas?
The common theme amongst the unfortunately labelled "athiests" is that they find parts, some, or most of theistic teachings to be illogical.
Regarding moral views, political views, etc., many "athiests" have much more in common with theists than they do with their so-called "brotherhood of athiests".

Is it logical to assume that one is a supportor of dictatorships because they may conclude that the bible contains inaccurate information? Well, you can draw your own conclusions, but IMO, that type of thinking belongs back in the dark ages.

Does it really matter if Darwin believed in theistic teachings or not? No, it's what he provided for the furtherment of understanding here on earth which has so far been realised to be of great importance.
If you don't see his work as being of any importance, then that's just your opinion. Most would disagree.

Back to top

IP Logged

locutius

Gold Member

Offline

You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #85 - May 29^th, 2009 at 8:39am

tallowood wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 7:36pm:

Amadd wrote on May 27^th, 2009 at 12:16am:

Quote:

Yes, just like the lost link looks more modern then most atheists Grin

But not quite as modern as the Shroud of Turin hey? Wink

You guys believe anything.

It is very amusing to see how atheists unsuccessfully try to own Darwin as one of them exposing themselves as empty duds without spirit or intellectual capacity of their own. Instead the nature of atheism becomes clearer by observing historical deeds of mass murdering and despotism of the real atheists such as Stalin, Mao etc.

But then again, atheists will suck anything to prove themselves as valid alternative to theism. Wink

Hilarious. Everytime you say it, it's still hilarious. You'll be telling me the Popes were all Saints next.

Logic, Reason and Evidence are the valid alternative to Faith.

Darwin was a believer that did not let his faith get in the way or contradict his intelligence or reality.

Back to top

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21785
A cat with a view

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #86 - May 29^th, 2009 at 10:55am

locutius wrote on May 28^th, 2009 at 4:36pm:

I can make a concession that scientists and people can be mistaken. I think it is very likely that the fossil is the age they say it is, considering that experts far beyond my enthusiastic but unqualified interest, would have taken great care in it and complementary evidence.

I think almost anything is possible but that there are degrees of likelihood. 4000 years old? No, I think I have more chance of winning division 1 Lotto 52 weeks in a row than of this being 4000 years old. I'll put my trust in science.

locutius,

Personally, i am prepared to put my trust in true scientific process.

i.e. A process which dismisses error, by appraising FACTS and EVIDENCE, and proving TRUTH.

Definition,
science = = the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Often what 'modern science' presents as 'unassailable' truth, 'common sense' and 'proof', is plain old INTELLECTUAL FRAUD.

And [yet!] people [Joe Public] still have faith, and they still believe - in the veracity of all 'modern science'.

LOL

It astounds me, how soft headed, many ppl are!!!

Google,
scientific fraud
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=scientific+fraud+&btnG=Google+Search&met...

But quite honestly locutius, i believe that you don't even see how bankrupt your confidence in the 'modern scientific method' is.

locutius,

READ, AND LISTEN TO YOUR OWN WORDS!!!

In your own statement,

.....
"I'll put my trust in science."
,

.....you are effectively saying is,

"I believe that a particular fossil, is 47 million years old, because 'scientists', and 'experts' say it is."

Where is YOUR respect for true scientific rigour and process?

You believe that a particular fossil, is 47 million years old, even in the absence of, and without 'science' presenting, conclusive, objective evidence.

i.e. Without proving the assertion, with the rigour of true, scientific process!

In your own statement,

"I'll put my trust in science."
,

.....you are effectively saying,

......I TRUST, AND I BELIEVE IN THE INTEGRITY OF MEN, MANKIND, AND A PSEUDO 'SCIENTIFIC' COMMUNITY.

AND I DON'T NEED ASSERTIONS MADE BY 'SCIENTISTS' TO BE PROVED BY BONA-FIDE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.

Good luck.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Amadd Gold Member Offline Mo Posts: 6217	Re: The Missing Link... Reply #87 - May 29^th, 2009 at 11:28am
Back to top	marmite.jpg (36 KB \| 96 ) IP Logged

locutius

Gold Member

Offline

You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #88 - May 29^th, 2009 at 12:03pm

Are you asking me to say that Scientific Fraud does not exist? Of course it does but it has a very important and aggressive check. And that is other scientists, a world of scientists in fact.

Curiously it is the creation scientists as a group who are the most ridiculed and regularly found to be accused of fraud, bad science or half truths.

It is interesting that you use the word bankrupt, because I would suggest that the most bankrupt group in terms of sincere research for truth are the ones (eg creation scientists) that have an original starting point or agenda and then attempt to make everything fit that original position.

I also understand that theories for scientists are by default original positions but I also know that that is why theories/original positions change. It is the scientists that adhere to an unchangable original position and poo poo anything that contradicts a strict interpretation to a baseless faith that in my mind are the ones least to trust.

What can I prove? What can any of us prove absolutely? But using common sense, observation, comparisons of knowledge across many disciplines AND an open mind, we choose between the sensible and nonesensical. It is about determining the weight and authority of different evidences.

Back to top

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21785
A cat with a view

Re: The Missing Link...
Reply #89 - May 29^th, 2009 at 12:07pm

EVEN BETTER THAN AN IMAGE OF MARMITE,
......IS AN IMAGE OF 70-MILLION-YEAR-OLD T-REX SOFT TISSUE.

LOL

Well, 'science' declares it so, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!!!

LOL

According to modern science, SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS.

"Here are some closer-up photos of the blood vessels in the Schweitzer T-Rex."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zJgf_wDYGjQ/SKH9iHlg8dI/AAAAAAAAAUM/GwmRY-qBzUw/s400/TRex+Blood.jpg

Google....
soft tissue t-rex
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=soft+tissue+t-rex&btnG=Google+Search&met...

Quote:

HERE IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

"A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-MILLION-YEAR-OLD THIGHBONE, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation."

Soft tissue taken from a 70-MILLION-YEAR-OLD THIGHBONE of a T-rex???

What poppycock!

Google....
soft tissue t-rex
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=soft+tissue+t-rex&btnG=Google+Search&met...

Item at the National Geographic Society site....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

According to modern science, SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS.

....Do you really, really, believe that SOFT TISSUE from a T-rex has survived for 70-MILLION-YEARS???

at....
"Multiculti - preserve cultural id amid enemies"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1242606209/30#30

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged