Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
SCIENCE BUFFS; More stuff to chew on ...
Topic Started: Aug 13 2006, 12:30 AM (876 Views)
David Burton
Senior Carp
OK, fellow "scientists," let's take a look at this, mindful of all our past discussions on "scientific" subjects:

http://www.geologynet.com/tectonics1.htm

http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/FixedorExpandingEarth.htm

http://myst-technology.com/mysmartchannels/public/blog/8223

http://www.dinox.org/

http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=954&

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html

http://www.skepchick.org/skepticsguide/vie...6fb38a5c6595397

http://www.4threvolt.com/

http://www.hollowearththeory.com/articles/...thAnimation.asp

By the way, how you decide this issue decides all other related issues.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I love it. Without vouching for one viewpoint or the other, it supports my contention that so much of what we 'know' today is either horribly wrong or, at best, a small sliver of the subject at hand.

In every age man has arrogantly believed, and rightly so, that he was the most advanced. The problem with this is that it can lead to a dogmatic hierarchy in science.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
the good thing about science as we 'practice' it, is that theories are based upon known facts.

facts may challenge theories and theories are invalid.
theories that contradict facts do not make facts untrue.
science is self correcting and a servant to all
theories that attempt to 'correct' science only serve a few.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nunatax
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
I'm sorry, I'm not impressed, not at all.

This is how science works. Trial and error. Some theories are very strong and widely accepted. Sometimes other scientists find holes in those theories, and it depends on how big those holes are, whether or not the theory will survive.

Surprised that theories keep standing despite the fact that holes have been found? It's a good thing, because it would be very inefficient to arrive at the truth if a (strong) theory would be abandonded for even the slightest hole.

Look at the theory of evolution. One of the best examples. The Intelligent Design (ID) movement likes to bring up the theory of irreducible complexity (IC), and many people have used this to cry out as loud as they can that the theory of evolution must be wrong then. Thankfully, scientists haven't abandoned it over this, because a lot of the examples of IC made by the ID movement have been debunked. If it weren't for people like you who have lately started to cry out at the top of their lungs that the theory of evolution must be wrong because of the ID arguments, it would have long been acknowledged that it is ID that is getting weaker, and the theory of evolution that is getting stronger as science progresses.

If arguments like the ones in your articles become strong enough, the original theory will fall, which is how science works. That's a good thing no?
You seem somewhat familiar. Have I threatened you before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kentcouncil
Fulla-Carp
apple
Aug 13 2006, 08:51 AM
the good thing about science as we 'practice' it, is that theories are based upon known facts.

facts may challenge theories and theories are invalid.
theories that contradict facts do not make facts untrue.
science is self correcting and a servant to all
theories that attempt to 'correct' science only serve a few.

apple is right.

Science is not a monolithic body of "truth".

Nor is it a collection of acolytes who preach "truth". The "academic scientific community" is not science. A five year old observing insects in a field or minnows in a stream is the purest scientist the world has ever known.

It is a process for arriving at truth. It is active questioning, exploration, observation, deduction, and prediction, with the central tenet always being the skeptical demand: "Prove it."

Those who can't prove it tend to be the ones who reject science and, as apple implies, they usually have their own non-scientific agendas.

Unfortunately, the practice of science can be corrupted by money, politics, social forces, etc. Scientists can be as flawed and arrogant as anyone else. That does not invalidate, however, the scientific method.
It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't.

- P.G. Wodehouse
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
I really don't understand what's so wrong with science. What about the process should be changed?

These websites are definitely interesting, but they're definitely not anything new, either. For every scientific theory that is understood as fact today, there are others out there that refute the basis.

Now, if the evidence against a theory is strong enough, it gets replaced. Enough evidence that is sound enough, and is tangible.

Science is the best system we have in place to understand how the natural world works. That doesn't mean it's perfect, and I don't think there's anyone out there who claims that it is.

As for blindly following the beliefs of scientists, I have found that the people who do this the least are, well, other scientists. If you're not a skeptic, if you're not naturally critical, then you have no business being a scientist.

And as for appealing to the beliefs of a scientist because that's in their field, well... yes, I am going to do that. If I want to know how rain clouds work, I'm going to ask a meteorologist, and though he won't know everything there is to know, I'm going to take what he says seriously, for he knows more on the subject than I do.

This isn't faulty, and in fact, people do this all the time. If your car's making weird noises, you're going to ask a friend of yours who's a mechanic what they think the problem is. If you're moving into a new neighborhood, you're going to ask your neighbors about any crime problems they might have, or how the schools are, etc. It is just plain arrogant and poor judgment to throw out a person's background and understanding when asking them for an opinion. Meteorologists make it their life's work to understand the weather. Now, they can't tell me what the weather is going to be like on my next birthday, but you can bet if they say it'll be sunny tomorrow, I'm going to take their word over my neighbor's. I can count on my right hand the number of times he'll lead me astray.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
There is nothing wrong with science at all, as a pure discipline. But there is no such thing as a pure discipline in terms of how it is implemented and supported financially. Aye, there's the rub.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
So what's the alternative?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Look at the theory of evolution. One of the best examples. The Intelligent Design (ID) movement likes to bring up the theory of irreducible complexity (IC), and many people have used this to cry out as loud as they can that the theory of evolution must be wrong then. Thankfully, scientists haven't abandoned it over this, because a lot of the examples of IC made by the ID movement have been debunked. "


"If it weren't for people like you who have lately started to cry out at the top of their lungs that the theory of evolution must be wrong because of the ID arguments, it would have long been acknowledged that it is ID that is getting weaker, and the theory of evolution that is getting stronger as science progresses." -

Please explain for us the evolutional answer to the Cambrian Explosion.

Evolutionists can't, maybe you can.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Your one stop shopping solution is here: The Cambrian explosion and eye evolution solved at one stroke: In the Blink of an Eye.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Jacob Jingoism Smith
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
"The Cambrian world was bracketed between two ice ages, one during the late Late Proterozoic and the other during the Ordovician. During these ice ages, the decrease in global temperature led to mass extinctions. Cooler conditions eliminated many warm water species, and glaciation lowered global sea level. However, during the Cambrian there was no significant ice formation. None of the continents were located at the poles, and so land temperatures remained mild. In fact, global climate was probably warmer and more unifrom than it is today. With the beginning of the Cambrian at the retreat of Proterozoic ice, the sea level rose significantly. Lowland areas such as Baltica were flooded and much of the world was covered by epeiric seas. This event opened up new habitats where marine invertebrates, such as the trilobites, radiated and flourished.

Plants had not yet evolved, and the terrestrial world was therefore devoid of vegetation and inhospitable to life as we know it. Photosynthesis and primary production were the monopoly of bacteria and algal protists that populated the world's shallow seas.

Also during the Cambrian, oxygen first mixed into the world's oceans in significant quantity. Although there was plentiful atmospheric oxygen by the opening of the Cambrian, only in the Cambrian did the numbers of oxygen-depleting bacteria reduce in numbers sufficiently to permit the high levels we know today. This made dissolved oxygen available to the diversity of animals, and may have triggered the "Cambrian Explosion". This was when most of the major groups of animals, especially those with hard shells, first appear in the fossil record."

ref: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html
Jingoism

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Nina
Aug 13 2006, 11:50 AM
So what's the alternative?

Who says there has to be an alternative? We do the best we can with what we have. It is imperfect and shall always be so.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nunatax
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Larry
Aug 13 2006, 08:09 AM
Quote:
 
Look at the theory of evolution. One of the best examples. The Intelligent Design (ID) movement likes to bring up the theory of irreducible complexity (IC), and many people have used this to cry out as loud as they can that the theory of evolution must be wrong then. Thankfully, scientists haven't abandoned it over this, because a lot of the examples of IC made by the ID movement have been debunked. "


"If it weren't for people like you who have lately started to cry out at the top of their lungs that the theory of evolution must be wrong because of the ID arguments, it would have long been acknowledged that it is ID that is getting weaker, and the theory of evolution that is getting stronger as science progresses." -

Please explain for us the evolutional answer to the Cambrian Explosion.

Evolutionists can't, maybe you can.

OMFG :rolleyes2:

First of all, there are plenty of theories that are trying to explain the Cambrian explosion. If you would be doing ANY decent reading at all, which does not seem to be the case when I read your posts lately, you would know that.

I think you read a little too much websites like this one :
http://www.learnthebible.org/creation_scie...s_evolution.htm


Secondly, I was not trying to start a debate on ID vs. evolution, I was merely pointing out that it's not because it's shown that there are holes in a theory, that the theory must be dropped immediately, as these holes can be filled up if the necessary research is done.

You seem somewhat familiar. Have I threatened you before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
So.... the explanation of why the most critical phase of evolution doesn't fit in the long, gradual method required in Darwinian evolution is explained with two points - one long period where there was no evolutional activity at all, and then a "light switch" theory....

Interesting....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
First of all, there are plenty of theories that are trying to explain the Cambrian explosion. If you would be doing ANY decent reading at all, which does not seem to be the case when I read your posts lately, you would know that.


Put your attitude in your pocket bud, or I'll show you how it's done. You may not agree with me, but don't try the little "I'm smarter than you" tack. You're not.

Now - in response to your total confidence in your opinion (and it's just your opinion after all) that *you* are the one doing the "quality reading".... yes, there are lots of theories *trying* to explain it, but none of them have. And no, I didn't get my information from a religious website. Put your bigotry away and debate me like you had some intelligence, of shut the f**k up.


Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
The theory of evolution has evolved (ha ha) significantly since Darwin first went to the Galapagos.

The "long, slow process" really isn't descriptive of the full range of evolutionary behavior. There are instances and mechanisms that can cause significant change in an organism within only a few generations.

Weiner's "The Beak of the Finch" is a good read that explains one situation. If folks are interested, I'd recommend this book highly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John Jacob Jingoism Smith
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Larry
Aug 13 2006, 09:39 AM
So.... the explanation of why the most critical phase of evolution doesn't fit in the long, gradual method required in Darwinian evolution is explained with two points - one long period where there was no evolutional activity at all, and then a "light switch" theory....

Interesting....

Evolutionary science has for a time incorporated concepts of slow, gradual evolution along with periods of more rapid diversification usually called punctuated evolution AKA Punctuated Equilibrium.

It does seem quite obvious that both processes occur.
Jingoism

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nunatax
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Larry
Aug 13 2006, 08:39 AM
So.... the explanation of why the most critical phase of evolution doesn't fit in the long, gradual method required in Darwinian evolution is explained with two points - one long period where there was no evolutional activity at all, and then a "light switch" theory....

Interesting....

*sigh* :no:

I'm not going to dig it all up for you, Larry. This would take me a lot of time, a lot more than with the ozone hole thing. And in the end, when I've made my case, you'd probably just disappear again. Or are you preparing some huge post in which you'll blast us all away with a self thought out supertheory on the mechanism behind ozone destruction?

For the rest, see Nina's post, she summarized nicely how the theory of evolution is not as narrow (anymore) as you believe it to be.
You seem somewhat familiar. Have I threatened you before?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
The "long, slow process" really isn't descriptive of the full range of evolutionary behavior. There are instances and mechanisms that can cause significant change in an organism within only a few generations.


Yep... if a random mutation is both highly reproductively advantageous and highly heritable then evolution will obviously occur within a few generations.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
And the opposite is true, also.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Nina, the Cambrian explosion isn't that kind of "significant change".

And I'm not saying it refutes evolution. But honest evolutionists who aren't politically or ideologically motivated admit it presents some real problems that no one has answers for.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Nunatax, kiss my ass. *You* are the one trying to limit debate - just as all "evolution is the only answer to all the questions" bunch of idiots do.

You may think you have all the answers, and that I have nothing to add, and don't know what I'm talking about.

You would be wrong, on both counts.

Now I'll ask you again - either discuss the subject without your snide attitude of intellectual superiority, or shut the **** up. You disagree with my views - fine - but there are quite a number of people within the scientific community far more educated than you are who disagree with your views, and your attitude of superiority in regards to them.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Please explain for us the evolutional answer to the Cambrian Explosion.

Evolutionists can't, maybe you can.


Well there are papers by molecular biologists disputing there was an explosion at all.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/...t/22/3/387?etoc

I.e. evolution was not particularly 'rapid' and that it is simply an artifact of the fossilisation process - i.e. when hard exoskeletons turned up suddenly you got vastly more fossils.

There is a very short and sharp description of some of the various ideas behind the cambrian explosion here:

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Cambrian/Index.html


It should be noted of course that evolution is gradual in the sense that it is graded, not in the sense that the rate does not vary. Evolutionary biologists expect evolution to be slower or faster according the various selective pressures organisms experience. If you have some particularly significant event, maybe the evolution of the eye, or Hox gene evolution or perhaps the ability to utilise oxygen, some other environmental change the suddenly opens up multiple niches then you can get rapid diversification as a result.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
David Burton
Senior Carp
Mikhailoh
Aug 13 2006, 05:40 AM
I love it. Without vouching for one viewpoint or the other, it supports my contention that so much of what we 'know' today is either horribly wrong or, at best, a small sliver of the subject at hand.

In every age man has arrogantly believed, and rightly so, that he was the most advanced. The problem with this is that it can lead to a dogmatic hierarchy in science.

There is a difference between knowing and guessing. What's so appalling to me is that in scientific debates, we are frequently treated to considerable heat over defending or refuting a guess.

You people talk about the theory of evolution (amended from Darwin or not, it makes no difference) with the same heat as if one were discussing the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. I believe there is a connection - both are essentially religious dogmas that one would like to believe in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary. Yeah and I suppose babies are brought in by storks too.

The human propensity to try to foist some guess on another as real knowledge is part of why in the next round, the evolutionary process may seal our fate as a race.

Now what about the expanding earth hypothesis?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Nina, the Cambrian explosion isn't that kind of "significant change".

And I'm not saying it refutes evolution. But honest evolutionists who aren't politically or ideologically motivated admit it presents some real problems that no one has answers for.


It doesn't present "real problems" for Darwinian theory since the various explanations available all seem plausible. One can have a mystery without a crisis you know.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3