Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

KGB/Stasi

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
PaiNTbALLfReNzY View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Arsenal FC Fan

Joined: 07 July 2002
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Points: 3808
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote PaiNTbALLfReNzY Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 2:18pm
On a less serious note, what would Obama name his civilian force?

Obaminators
Hopenitizers
The Chronies

That was the best I could do
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 2:19pm
and i fully believe in the validity of science and the scientific method, i just think evolution is one of those area's (or rather constitutes a large quantity of those areas, either by direct correlation or close relation to them) that are misrepresented by people who've gotten caught up in thier work.

i'm not going to argue that purely speaking in sceintific temrs - evolution is the best theory currently available to explain what happened.

but i do not agree that it is so well proven to nearly constitute fact. as i believe there is simply FAR too much we do not know to be making such a bold statement.

Edited by adrenalinejunky - 03 November 2008 at 2:20pm
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 2:25pm

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:


but i do not agree that it is so well proven to nearly constitute fact. as i believe there is simply FAR too much we do not know to be making such a bold statement.

We may have to get scientific here, but this depends on what "it" is.  Evolutionary theory is large and complex, and includes a myriad of subtheories and hypotheses.  Many of these are hotly contested; others are not.

So what is the "it" that is not proven enough to be fact?  Common ancestry?  The role of natural selection?  The lack of teleological characteristics?  Something else?

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 2:50pm
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

but i do not agree that it is so well proven to nearly constitute fact. as i believe there is simply FAR too much we do not know to be making such a bold statement.


We may have to get scientific here, but this depends on what "it" is.  Evolutionary theory is large and complex, and includes a myriad of subtheories and hypotheses.  Many of these are hotly contested; others are not.


So what is the "it" that is not proven enough to be fact?  Common ancestry?  The role of natural selection?  The lack of teleological characteristics?  Something else?



some things i have issues with lack of evidence - for instance, the fossil record, i seem to recall we touched on this point a long time ago, my opinion is that even under punctuated equilibrium, we should be uncovering a much larger number of fossils from forms with very slightly differing levels of evolution, instead of the fossil record that we do have.

others i have problems with interpretation of evidence, for instance, common ancestry. having similar genetic makeup is something that COULD indicated evolution, but it also could indicate ID, or perhaps something we arent aware of yet.

and also for some i have issues with methods used to obtain evidence, for instance - and i know i'm gonna get it for even bringing this up - radiometric dating.

now dont get me wrong here, i'm not trying to say that its really so far off that when it sas 4.5 billion years, that really means 6-10 thousand.

i dont believe the earth is that young and havent for a long time, but i do take exception to the inherant assumtions that do go along with using a method like radiometric dating, i understand there are methods of looking at it to help limit these assumptions somewhat, but they are still there.
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 2:55pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:



Gravity shmavity.  When I fall, it is the invisible hand of God pushing me down. 

Fixed before you get the wrath of the Christian right after you.

 



my pushing is australias pulling.
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 3:08pm
Originally posted by Eville Eville wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:



Gravity shmavity.  When I fall, it is the invisible hand of God pushing me down. 

Fixed before you get the wrath of the Christian right after you.

 



my pushing is australias pulling.

That's ok then, since God only Blesses the USA, so he must reside in our airspace.

"When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter.
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:01pm

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:


some things i have issues with lack of evidence - for instance, the fossil record, i seem to recall we touched on this point a long time ago, my opinion is that even under punctuated equilibrium, we should be uncovering a much larger number of fossils from forms with very slightly differing levels of evolution, instead of the fossil record that we do have.

others i have problems with interpretation of evidence, for instance, common ancestry. having similar genetic makeup is something that COULD indicated evolution, but it also could indicate ID, or perhaps something we arent aware of yet.

and also for some i have issues with methods used to obtain evidence, for instance - and i know i'm gonna get it for even bringing this up - radiometric dating.

And each of those independently would perhaps give one reason to doubt.

But they are not in a vacuum - they work together and corroborate each other.

Prior to modern genetics and radiometric dating, the phylogenetic trees were devleoped based mainly on examinations of fossils and current species.  Fossils were dated primarily based on stratification.

Based on those limited facts, fairly detailed phyogenetic layouts were devleoped.

Then modern genetics came along, and it was like getting the teacher's edition of the textbook.  Suddenly you could see all the relationships spelled out.  And those relationships turned out to be almost EXACTLY the same phyogenetic relationships as were predicted by the pre-genetic science.

This was a massive confirmation of fossil interpretation.

Then came radiometric dating, which again confirmed the strata-based dating of fossils and other finds, and confirmed the timelines predicted by genetics.

Each of these three sources independently arrived at basically the same result.

And there are others - tectonic history turns out to align perfectly with genetic movement across continents.

Etc.

My point is that focusing on weaknesses in the fossil record as weaknesses in the support for evolutionary theory is a mistake, because the fossil record is only a small piece of the puzzle.

If you read the works of the ID folks, they keep talking about fossils.

If you read a textbook about evolutionary biology, it is all about genetics.  Evolution is a genetic phenomenon, not a fossil phenomenon.  It's all about the genetics.  No gap in the fossil record can undo that - to the contrary, every fossil found supports the genetic theory.

Based on existing learning, scientists were able to not only predict the existence of a feathered dinosaur (which creationists said would never be found), but also to predict more or less what it would look like, where it would be found, and how old it would be.  All of those were borne out.

And yes - all of the evidence for evolutionary theory is also consistent with ID.  And it is consistent with any other theory that adds in a superfluous feature.  ID adds nothing to the table, and there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the outside influence theorized by ID.  ID is a fine philosphical theory, but that is all it is.  It may be true and correct, but we have no evidence that this is the case.  Zero.

(sorry - as you know, I could go on about this for some time)

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4788
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:13pm

I just brought evolution up to prove to Rbl that there would be stuff to talk about after tomorrow...

 

They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:16pm
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:


(sorry - as you know, I could go on about this for some time)


yes, i'm well aware, as could I...

Quote

And yes - all of the evidence for evolutionary theory is also consistent with ID.  And it is consistent with any other theory that adds in a superfluous feature.  ID adds nothing to the table, and there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the outside influence theorized by ID.  ID is a fine philosphical theory, but that is all it is.  It may be true and correct, but we have no evidence that this is the case.  Zero.




or perhaps its the other way around - i do see MOUNDS of evidence, but i also see a system of evaluating such evidence which is largely based on bias.

dont get me wrong, thats not an insult - despite common perceptions that invovle the negative connotations assosiated with bias, the pure fact is that everything we hear we evaluate based on what we believe - some people do have too much bias, or and unfounded bias, this is true, but everyone has it to some extent. i personally look at the evidence, and there is nothing to suggest to me that it should support evolution rather then ID, which i'm not neccessarily meaning to imply a God like figure, though that is one of the mostly widely upheld possibilities when speaking of ID.



Edited by adrenalinejunky - 03 November 2008 at 4:17pm
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:28pm

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:


or perhaps its the other way around - i do see MOUNDS of evidence, but i also see a system of evaluating such evidence which is largely based on bias.

...i personally look at the evidence, and there is nothing to suggest to me that it should support evolution rather then ID, which i'm not neccessarily meaning to imply a God like figure, though that is one of the mostly widely upheld possibilities when speaking of ID.

Bias is always a concern, of course, and I am sure scientists have it in piles.  But here the main bias is a "pro-scientific method" bias.  The evidence put forth by Behe & pals has consistently failed to meet even the basic levels of scientific rigorousocitiness.

As to the existing scientific evidence, you are correct that is supports ID as much as it does conventional evolutionary theory.

But ID is basically "evolution plus".  ID comes in different flavors, but the commons ones basically agree with (or at least don't disagree with) all of current evolutionary theory, but add in the concept of the design - without evidence for the design.

Occam's Razor tells me that I must go with traditional evolution until the ID can prove their kitchen sink.  I am not saying that ID false - I am saying that ID adds nothing, and should therefore be disregarded until it does add something.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:36pm
Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:


But ID is basically "evolution plus".  ID comes in different flavors, but the commons ones basically agree with (or at least don't disagree with) all of current evolutionary theory, but add in the concept of the design - without evidence for the design.




while this does indeed compose some beliefs in ID, ID is such i broad field i should have specified earlier.

i dont really even see a point in argueing evolution vs "evolution plus".

i was refering more no non-evolutionary flavors of ID.
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:37pm

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:


i dont really even see a point in argueing evolution vs "evolution plus".

i was refering more no non-evolutionary flavors of ID.

Ah.

My familiarity with these are less, but would not any non-evolutionary ID basically just be direct creationism?

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 4:53pm
pretty much, though not neccessarily adhearing to all preconceptions commonly assosiated with creationism.

for instance, maybe we are just a science experiment by advanced aliens who got bored.

that would still be intelligent design.

i would like to note, that is just an example, i'm not saying i have evidence supporting that particular explanation.
Back to Top
Bruce Banner View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 August 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce Banner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 6:29pm

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

pretty much, though not neccessarily adhearing to all preconceptions commonly assosiated with creationism.

for instance, maybe we are just a science experiment by advanced aliens who got bored.

that would still be intelligent design.

i would like to note, that is just an example, i'm not saying i have evidence supporting that particular explanation.

Fair enough.

I have nothing against alternate theories.  My beef is when people try to bring non-science (like ID) into a science discussion.  I like philosophy as much as the next guy, but I do try to not let it touch my science.

Waste and excess are not conservative family values
Nature is not a liberal plot
A Good Energy Plan
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 7:05pm
My $0.02:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:


I think God made me, I didn't come from some magic goo,
that turned into a fish, then a worm, then a monkey,
then me..,


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOOLLOLLLLOLLLL

*gasp*







LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Edited by Benjichang - 03 November 2008 at 7:06pm
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 7:08pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:


Originally posted by Bruce Banner Bruce Banner wrote:

Yep.  Just like "The Secret" is a theory, Newtonian physics is a (set of) theory, the 9/11 conspiracy is a theory, and general relativity is a theory.


Not all theories are created equal.


Meh.  I think there is still a lot of work to do on the specifics of evolution, that's all that theory means.  I don't count out the Biblical description of creation though.  I don't necessarily think that one precludes the other, as do most Christians.


Exactly, one does not disprove or even have to contradict the other.

Adrenalinejunky: Evolution does not necessarily take place over thousands of years as you seem to think. Some forms of evolution can change a species dramatically in the period of a generation.
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 7:17pm
i assume your refering to the "hopeful monster" theory?

while that is true, i havent really found any scientific circles that actually still take that seriously...
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 7:54pm
Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:

i assume your refering to the "hopeful monster" theory?

while that is true, i havent really found any scientific circles that actually still take that seriously...


No, not at all.

I am referring to a theroy that is proven. (just forgot the name... )
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 7:59pm
if its not that, then i assume you must be refering to punctuated equilibria, however, while that does state there are periods of accellerated evolution, they still require a much, much longer timespan then a single generation.

and even punctuated equilibria, though its widely accepted among evolutionists, is not proven...
Back to Top
Evil Elvis View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Crusher of Dreams

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4250
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Evil Elvis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 November 2008 at 8:29pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

I think God made me, I didn't come from some magic goo, that turned into a fish, then a worm, then a monkey, then me...


looks like goo to me.

Edited by Evil Elvis - 03 November 2008 at 8:29pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.