U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:16 AM
 
Location: 9851 Meadowglen Lane, Apt 42, Houston Texas
3,178 posts, read 1,694,335 times
Reputation: 368

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
It is true that they are looking for more evidence as to the first 3 minutes. As I said that is not really know, but there is all sorts of evidence for it such as clues from supernovas, light, the presence of certain types of radition at certain levels. etc. Basically if we applied your desire for "evidence" to homicide cases we would almost never convict because even though we have the gun, the bloody shirt, a lack of an alibi, a motive and a bunch of people fleeing the scene we don't have an eye witness or a confession so it there is not enough evidence.
Theories fall in camps, the Big Bang Theory is in a very weak camp. Not only does little evidence support it but the usefullness theory is gauged by its predictive power as a calculative model. The Big Bang Theory does little to none of that. In fact there are so many things unexplainable by it that the theory itself has underwent some major revisions. Cosmologists cling to it because it's basically the only model they have.

 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:17 AM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 9,022,835 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire View Post
Theories fall in camps, the Big Bang Theory is in a very weak camp. Not only does little evidence support it but the usefullness theory is gauged by it's predictive power as a calculative model. The Big Bang Theory does little to none of that. In fact there are so many things unexplainable by it that the theory itself has underwent some major revisions. Cosmologists cling to it because it's basically the only model they have.
It has a lot of evidence. Right down to the color of the night sky, and the uniformity of the universe. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its weak. It has hugely strong scientic support.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 13,504,239 times
Reputation: 4884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker5in1 View Post
Your condescension noted. You don't really know anything about who posts here though do you? You assume an inferior level of knowledge, intelligence, and education because they aren't in agreement with your perhaps errant understanding.
Actually, it's because these people show an inferior capacity to comprehend things outside of their bubble. They believe what they believe to be unchangeable facts and will quite literally ignore anything that doesn't match with their beliefs. Whereas, in a scientific setting, you gotta be prepared to learn new things and come to the realization that what was once believed to be true has changed due to new evidence.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:19 AM
 
Location: 9851 Meadowglen Lane, Apt 42, Houston Texas
3,178 posts, read 1,694,335 times
Reputation: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
It has a lot of evidence. Right down to the color of the night sky, and the uniformity of the universe. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its weak. It has hugely strong scientic support.
First of all the universe is not uniform (in her radiation). They had to hack on ad hoc premise to the Big Bang that allowed for the 'accelerating expansion' of the universe that accounts for this. But it's still weak.

Like I said, Cosmologists cling to it because it's all they have. Without it they're outdated.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:21 AM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 9,022,835 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire View Post
First of all the universe is not uniform (in her radiation). They had to hack on ad hoc premise to the Big Bang that allowed for the 'accelerating expansion' of the universe that accounts for this. But it's still weak.

Like I said, Cosmologists cling to it because it's all they have. Without it they're outdated.
It is uniform in that relatively speaking that it is fairly standard and homogeneous. Like I said just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is not the case.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
7,450 posts, read 5,819,196 times
Reputation: 2170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker5in1 View Post
He's absolutely correct about the fossil record. There are NO fossils of transitional forms, None. Nada.
False.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Talk Origins
Claim CC200:

There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record. Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
Response:

  1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
  2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

    The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
    1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
    2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
    3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
    4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
    5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
    6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
    7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
    8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
    9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
    10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
    11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

    The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

    1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
    2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
    3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
    4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
    5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
    6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
    7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
    8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
    9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

    The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

    1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
    2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
    3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
Source:
CC200: Transitional fossils

Last edited by CaseyB; 03-25-2013 at 03:28 PM.. Reason: off topic
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:23 AM
 
83 posts, read 70,652 times
Reputation: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
You need to educate yourself before making such a silly comment...

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.1 That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.


Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home




Creationism teaching belongs in religious schools and institutions...NOT in public schools. Period!
Funny how skeptics and atheists won't entertain the possibility that the science behind evolution is wrong. If science is always changing and always re-evaluating evidence then it is possible that the evidence for evolution could change pre-conceived notions.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:24 AM
 
Location: 9851 Meadowglen Lane, Apt 42, Houston Texas
3,178 posts, read 1,694,335 times
Reputation: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
It is uniform in that relatively speaking that it is fairly standard.
No it's not. By uniform, it has a very specific mathematical definition that within a certain order of perturbation of the differential equations, it's all statistical noise. Well that turned out to be false so they added another order that required the universe to be accelerating. So the Big Bang went under one of her many revisions.

To me, this resembles when the astronomers added all the cycles to justify their model that the sun revolves around the earth (as well as all the planets). Ad hoc additions to save a bad theory.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
7,450 posts, read 5,819,196 times
Reputation: 2170
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLASTED View Post
Funny how skeptics and atheists won't entertain the possibility that the science behind evolution is wrong.
False yet again.

We fully accept that evolution may be proven wrong some day.

It just hasn't yet.
 
Old 03-13-2013, 11:29 AM
 
7,371 posts, read 4,639,472 times
Reputation: 3133
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallowsCalibrator View Post
I'm for suppressing any and all religions from influencing government entities.
There is a good reason to forbid any doctrine from becoming official in any way. But there's no reason to prevent, nor is there any way to prevent, religion from influencing government. If an idea is good it shouldn't be tossed out merely because the idea came from religion. Religion is more than just the mythology of it, it is also attitudes, practices, and ethics. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is a pretty good philosophy to adopt regardless of where it came from.

Quote:
Because religious schools are allowed to teach their associated religion. A public school cannot and should not ever teach religion (of any flavor) as fact.
I haven't seen many wanting to teach it as fact. I've seen people wanting to have it taught as a possibility. Saying it is possible that some supernatural force caused physical reality to come into being and that some sort of intelligence might be involved in how and why the universe exists as it does is not teaching religion as fact.

Quote:
Teaching about the religion can be done in an appropriate class, but interjecting religious beliefs into things like a science class is a concept left to those without the capacity to think for themselves.
Now you're just using typical anti-religious prejudice. The same people who say religion is a crutch for people who can't think for themselves accept their own faith based systems of thought.

To take one example, there is no particular reason to believe that all people are equal. Scientific evidence shows the opposite to be true. Some people are smarter, faster, stronger, healthier, etc than others. Yet we accept it as an article of faith in our society that all people are created equal. We devote the same amount of resources and provide the same opportunities to the incompetent as we do the super-competent. Finite resources are allocated to people who from the moment of their birth demonstrably do not have the potential make the most effective use of them. We accept natural selection as scientific fact, then order our society to purposely circumvent the very process that we accept made us into the dominant species we are.

Now I agree that this is the proper thing to do, that everyone should have equal opportunity. An elitist society is fundamentally unjust. I accept as an article of faith that the costs in terms of human rights outweighs the benefits of devoting all society's resources towards only the smartest. But I'm not going to do that and then ridicule a religious person as being incapable of thinking for themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top