The abomination is a very nice facility. The only reason it would be considered an abomination is if you don't agree with what is being taught there.
Speaking as someone who's BEEN to the abomination, it's ugly, preachy, whiny, and goes to great lengths to be un-educational and to dumb everything down well past the lowest common denominator. The models are all anatomically incorrect (hell, the theropods have their hands pronated in a way that would've actually dislocated the living animal's arms), the "why-it-was-ok-to-f*ck-your-daughter-in-the-bible" panel is singularly disturbing, and the design of the ark is physically and mechanically impossible given the sheer number of different species and subspecies of animals on Earth.
And acquired traits are not passed on to offspring.
My point exactly.
Rather than 'evolution affecting species and populations', I simply see 'different models' which were never originally the other, and given the revelation of the Piltdown Man as a fake, I consider any supposed 'transitional' evidence as equally fraudulent...
I'd suggest a better source to see how a person of science can be a person of faith is Dr. Francis Collins. He actually headed up the Human Genome Project, and from what I have seen has felt no need to alter his observations or otherwise misuse the scientific method as people like Ken Ham have done, nor to sacrifice his faith as others have done on an unneeded assumption that just because we don't write about God in a scientific journal we shouldn't speak of Him at all. While I think maybe he should not have tried to come up with a catchy term for theistic evolution, overall I'd say he has one of the closest descriptions of the position that I happen to take. The Language of God is a very cool book IMO and I would recommend it.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Okay, guys, look at it this way; the only way to confirm macro-evolution is to observe and record it, just like micro-evolution. Now, the many different types of canary Darwin document could have came from the same species and likely did adapt to their environments, but Darwin was unable to observe and record the process that led to this.
As Worffan has said, micro- and macro-evolution are meaningless distinctions, as micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution over a period of hundreds of thousands of generations.
This is the key problem; in order to prove the perceived scale of evolution, you'd need to spend millions of years recording it. On the other hand, if you take a canary, adapt it a dozen times over, is it still a canary, or is it something new? Proving micro-evolution is proving macro-evolution.
Although, the term 'evolution' itself is fallacious. Evolution is the gaining of information, but the genetic codes in 'evolving' creatures don't get more information - they adapt by losing information. Humans are not evolved apes, but very well-adapted apes. Therefore, 'Adaptation' would be a more accurate description for the process.
Rather than 'evolution affecting species and populations', I simply see 'different models' which were never originally the other, and given the revelation of the Piltdown Man as a fake, I consider any supposed 'transitional' evidence as equally fraudulent...
...
I...
I...
Does not compute.
Dude. I thought you were smart.
You do realize that somebody INEVITABLY cries fake at EVERY new fossil?
Scientists LOVE to prove things wrong. We LOVE it. There is NOTHING on this earth sweeter than going up to someone who you hate for some petty reason and slapping him in the face with a metric ton of evidence that proves that his life's work is bullpucky.
The idea that "one fossil was a bunch of dyed human and orangutan bones, therefore every fossil probably is" is ludicrous.
I'd suggest a better source to see how a person of science can be a person of faith is Dr. Francis Collins. He actually headed up the Human Genome Project, and from what I have seen has felt no need to alter his observations or otherwise misuse the scientific method as people like Ken Ham have done, nor to sacrifice his faith as others have done on an unneeded assumption that just because we don't write about God in a scientific journal we shouldn't speak of Him at all. While I think maybe he should not have tried to come up with a catchy term for theistic evolution, overall I'd say he has one of the closest descriptions of the position that I happen to take. The Language of God is a very cool book IMO and I would recommend it.
Thank you, Gulberat, for bringing a healthy dose of sanity and undeniable truth to this thread. I salute you!
You do realize that somebody INEVITABLY cries fake at EVERY new fossil?
Scientists LOVE to prove things wrong. We LOVE it. There is NOTHING on this earth sweeter than going up to someone who you hate for some petty reason and slapping him in the face with a metric ton of evidence that proves that his life's work is bullpucky.
The idea that "one fossil was a bunch of dyed human and orangutan bones, therefore every fossil probably is" is ludicrous.
Gotta admit, I'm with Worffan on this one; 'this is x so y must also be x' is one of the greatest fallacies you can make.
Like certain republicans saying 'well, this monarchy was bad so all monarchies must be bad', or the statement that 'this kid stole from someone so his entire family must be thieves'.
I'd suggest a better source to see how a person of science can be a person of faith is Dr. Francis Collins. He actually headed up the Human Genome Project, and from what I have seen has felt no need to alter his observations or otherwise misuse the scientific method as people like Ken Ham have done, nor to sacrifice his faith as others have done on an unneeded assumption that just because we don't write about God in a scientific journal we shouldn't speak of Him at all. While I think maybe he should not have tried to come up with a catchy term for theistic evolution, overall I'd say he has one of the closest descriptions of the position that I happen to take. The Language of God is a very cool book IMO and I would recommend it.
From what I read, he doesn't exactly seem like a man of faith... just saying.
The vague idea of god that he has is not faith. It is an interesting idea, but not something concrete to believe in.
It is sad to see so many religious people think Science is the enemy. To study the universe is to study the works of God. Therefore, these people are limiting their relationship with God by closing themselves off to Science.
It is sad to see so many religious people think Science is the enemy. To study the universe is to study the works of God. Therefore, these people are limiting their relationship with God by closing themselves off to Science.
True that. Avoiding science is a missed opportunity.
But that is illogical; such a being fundamentally MUST come from a universe, even one that is impossible for humans to understand.
NOTHING can exist outside of a discreet and finite universe within the infinite multiverse.
It is entirely possible, albeit extremely unlikely, that we will be invaded by Daleks from another universe at any particular second in time.
In fact, there MUST be a finite universe somewhere in the infinite multiverse that was invaded by Daleks from another universe. This is how the law of infinite possibilities works.
Nah, I'd take it as a sign of people being sentient creatures.
Sentient creatures notice things, and adapt their behavior to deal with those things. Heck, even nonsentient creatures notice things.
The prohibition on shellfish is no more complicated or inexplicable than a parrot learning to talk by watching other parrots get rewarded for talking.
The idea that humans are inherently incapable of noticing patterns and determining that certain foods (like shellfish) spoil really, really quickly in the environment of the Levant, for example, and must be given such information by a higher power is inherently fallacious and in defiance of all evidence.
Quoted the above simply because they're true, but...
Thus, either there aren't infinite universes, or they cannot interact with each other.
Ah, this is an error. See, just as there must be a universe somewhere that is being invaded by Daleks from another universe (to borrow from the metaphor you and worffan101 created), there must also be a variant of that universe that is not being invaded. Like I posted before, many-worlds theory, the law of infinite possibilities and all that stuff mean that some variants of every universe will never interact with certain other variants of certain other universes. For some variants of those universes, "certain other variants of certain other universes" will equate to "everything else in the multiverse". Our timeline may be one of those timelines that never sees anything outside its own universe, but that does not mean we should automatically say stuff like what you said.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
The idea that "one fossil was a bunch of dyed human and orangutan bones, therefore every fossil probably is" is ludicrous.
On the contrary, the discredit it brings to 'the establishment' which perpetrated and maintained the lie is massive and IMHO unrecoverable, because IMHO, it puts all other such 'evidence' under question.
It is sad to see so many religious people think Science is the enemy. To study the universe is to study the works of God. Therefore, these people are limiting their relationship with God by closing themselves off to Science.
I don't see science per se as the enemy. I think science has much to explain of everything around us, but equally, I don't simply buy a (observably shaky) theory just because 'the establishment' says I have to... :cool:
And?
This example not only IS a fake, but was part of a deliberate lie perpetuated by a supposedly reliable institution...
So? Are the religious clerics you think so highly of any better? I'm not defending what these people did (admittedly, I don't even know what they did), but to automatically assume that a different self-identified subset of humanity is any better is an indication of flawed logic.
On the contrary, the discredit it brings to 'the establishment' which perpetrated and maintained the lie is massive and IMHO unrecoverable, because IMHO, it puts all other such 'evidence' under question.
There are always rotten apples (or whatever fruit you prefer) in a basket. That does not necessarily (I have to really strongly emphasize that in this case) mean the whole basket should be dismissed as inedible.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Quoted the above simply because they're true, but...
Ah, this is an error. See, just as there must be a universe somewhere that is being invaded by Daleks from another universe (to borrow from the metaphor you and worffan101 created), there must also be a variant of that universe that is not being invaded. Like I posted before, many-worlds theory, the law of infinite possibilities and all that stuff mean that some variants of every universe will never interact with certain other variants of certain other universes. For some variants of those universes, "certain other variants of certain other universes" will equate to "everything else in the multiverse". Our timeline may be one of those timelines that never sees anything outside its own universe, but that does not mean we should automatically say stuff like what you said.
On the contrary, there MUST be a universe that is invading ours, at all times, if all iterations of reality exist elsewhere, and interact with each other.
There must be a universe A that is never invaded, yet there also must be a universe B that invades it. The whole idea is contradictory. Infinite contradictory universes could never interact.
I personally see no need to accept or deny the infinite worlds theory, as long as there are guidelines.
I don't see science per se as the enemy. I think science has much to explain of everything around us, but equally, I don't simply buy a (observably shaky) theory just because 'the establishment' says I have to... :cool:
And religion is somehow less shaky? Go invent a time machine, see whose theories turn out to be shaky. :rolleyes:
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
On the contrary, there MUST be a universe that is invading ours, at all times, if all iterations of reality exist elsewhere, and interact with each other.
There must be a universe A that is never invaded, yet there also must be a universe B that invades it. The whole idea is contradictory. Infinite contradictory universes could never interact.
I personally see no need to accept or deny the infinite worlds theory, as long as there are guidelines.
Alternate timelines. There is a virtually(?) infinite amount of variants of our universe alone, and there's an infinite amount of other universes. It is inevitable that some variants of the various universes cannot interact with the other universes and/or timelines, but it is equally inevitable that some variants can and will interact with each other.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Alternate timelines. There is a virtually(?) infinite amount of variants of our universe alone, and there's an infinite amount of other universes. It is inevitable that some variants of the various universes cannot interact with the other universes and/or timelines, but it is equally inevitable that some variants can and will interact with each other.
A simpler way of putting it would be Murphy's Law; whatever can happen will happen in this or another reality.
If you believe I'm referring to Stephen Hawkings 'forward-only' time travel, then you are correct.
What was that, a closed timelike loop or something? I forget the exact name, but I read about it...
Edit: We seem to have hijacked the discussion...
Re-edit: Mind you, he's right within the context of this particular timeline. As I said above, backwards time travel necessitates another variant of the universe in question (in other words, another timeline).
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Alternate timelines. There is a virtually(?) infinite amount of variants of our universe alone, and there's an infinite amount of other universes. It is inevitable that some variants of the various universes cannot interact with the other universes and/or timelines, but it is equally inevitable that some variants can and will interact with each other.
I am seeing flaws, but I think I have already described them. Where does one draw the line of what is permissible and not in the interaction of different universes? Why some elements interacting and not others? There has to be some restriction in such a model, or the contradictions wipe the multiverse out.
EDIT: Alternate timelines generated from interactions between universes would solve the problem... somewhat. Regardless, as much as the multiverse theories entertain me and make for good sci-fi, I personally see no need to acknowledge them, and really don't believe them.
What was that, a closed timelike loop or something? I forget the exact name, but I read about it...
Edit: We seem to have hijacked the discussion...
Re-edit: Mind you, he's right within the context of this particular timeline. As I said above, backwards time travel necessitates another variant of the universe in question (in other words, another timeline).
Because if all the elements were capable of interacting, we'd just have one universe again. A weird one where traveling between segments was difficult, but a single universe nonetheless.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Because if all the elements were capable of interacting, we'd just have one universe again. A weird one where traveling between segments was difficult, but a single universe nonetheless.
I suppose the question is more: Why element A and not B?
So? Are the religious clerics you think so highly of any better? I'm not defending what these people did (admittedly, I don't even know what they did), but to automatically assume that a different self-identified subset of humanity is any better is an indication of flawed logic.
I've not specified any religious cleric at all, and indeed, there are some massively manipulative clerics. And equally, I originally posted, that if benefit of the doubt must be extended to concepts like Darwin's theory of evolution (plot holes and all) rather than the null hypothesis, then by extension, the same standard must be applied to theism, rather than the null hypothesis :cool:
There are always rotten apples (or whatever fruit you prefer) in a basket. That does not necessarily (I have to really strongly emphasize that in this case) mean the whole basket should be dismissed as inedible.
When an Institution, an Establishment, perpetuates a deliberate lie, that casts doubt on anything said Establishment claims, and becomes little more than an attempt to maintain a 'Party Line' which subsequent scientists either uphold and stick to, or wind up ridiculed and sidelined...
Comments
Speaking as someone who's BEEN to the abomination, it's ugly, preachy, whiny, and goes to great lengths to be un-educational and to dumb everything down well past the lowest common denominator. The models are all anatomically incorrect (hell, the theropods have their hands pronated in a way that would've actually dislocated the living animal's arms), the "why-it-was-ok-to-f*ck-your-daughter-in-the-bible" panel is singularly disturbing, and the design of the ark is physically and mechanically impossible given the sheer number of different species and subspecies of animals on Earth.
It's an abomination.
Rather than 'evolution affecting species and populations', I simply see 'different models' which were never originally the other, and given the revelation of the Piltdown Man as a fake, I consider any supposed 'transitional' evidence as equally fraudulent...
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
As Worffan has said, micro- and macro-evolution are meaningless distinctions, as micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution over a period of hundreds of thousands of generations.
This is the key problem; in order to prove the perceived scale of evolution, you'd need to spend millions of years recording it. On the other hand, if you take a canary, adapt it a dozen times over, is it still a canary, or is it something new? Proving micro-evolution is proving macro-evolution.
Although, the term 'evolution' itself is fallacious. Evolution is the gaining of information, but the genetic codes in 'evolving' creatures don't get more information - they adapt by losing information. Humans are not evolved apes, but very well-adapted apes. Therefore, 'Adaptation' would be a more accurate description for the process.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
...
I...
I...
Does not compute.
Dude. I thought you were smart.
You do realize that somebody INEVITABLY cries fake at EVERY new fossil?
Scientists LOVE to prove things wrong. We LOVE it. There is NOTHING on this earth sweeter than going up to someone who you hate for some petty reason and slapping him in the face with a metric ton of evidence that proves that his life's work is bullpucky.
The idea that "one fossil was a bunch of dyed human and orangutan bones, therefore every fossil probably is" is ludicrous.
Thank you, Gulberat, for bringing a healthy dose of sanity and undeniable truth to this thread. I salute you!
Gotta admit, I'm with Worffan on this one; 'this is x so y must also be x' is one of the greatest fallacies you can make.
Like certain republicans saying 'well, this monarchy was bad so all monarchies must be bad', or the statement that 'this kid stole from someone so his entire family must be thieves'.
It doesn't work!
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
The vague idea of god that he has is not faith. It is an interesting idea, but not something concrete to believe in.
Quoted the above simply because they're true, but...
Ah, this is an error. See, just as there must be a universe somewhere that is being invaded by Daleks from another universe (to borrow from the metaphor you and worffan101 created), there must also be a variant of that universe that is not being invaded. Like I posted before, many-worlds theory, the law of infinite possibilities and all that stuff mean that some variants of every universe will never interact with certain other variants of certain other universes. For some variants of those universes, "certain other variants of certain other universes" will equate to "everything else in the multiverse". Our timeline may be one of those timelines that never sees anything outside its own universe, but that does not mean we should automatically say stuff like what you said.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
This example not only IS a fake, but was part of a deliberate lie perpetuated by a supposedly reliable institution...
On the contrary, the discredit it brings to 'the establishment' which perpetrated and maintained the lie is massive and IMHO unrecoverable, because IMHO, it puts all other such 'evidence' under question.
So? Are the religious clerics you think so highly of any better? I'm not defending what these people did (admittedly, I don't even know what they did), but to automatically assume that a different self-identified subset of humanity is any better is an indication of flawed logic.
There are always rotten apples (or whatever fruit you prefer) in a basket. That does not necessarily (I have to really strongly emphasize that in this case) mean the whole basket should be dismissed as inedible.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
There must be a universe A that is never invaded, yet there also must be a universe B that invades it. The whole idea is contradictory. Infinite contradictory universes could never interact.
I personally see no need to accept or deny the infinite worlds theory, as long as there are guidelines.
And religion is somehow less shaky? Go invent a time machine, see whose theories turn out to be shaky. :rolleyes:
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Well, if he does, then Stephen Hawking's theories would turn out to be shaky.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Alternate timelines. There is a virtually(?) infinite amount of variants of our universe alone, and there's an infinite amount of other universes. It is inevitable that some variants of the various universes cannot interact with the other universes and/or timelines, but it is equally inevitable that some variants can and will interact with each other.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Quite.
If you're referring to what I think you're referring to: Yes, yes they would.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
A simpler way of putting it would be Murphy's Law; whatever can happen will happen in this or another reality.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
People keep mentioning Murphy's Law in such differing contexts. I need to look it up eventually...
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
If you believe I'm referring to Stephen Hawkings 'forward-only' time travel, then you are correct.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
What was that, a closed timelike loop or something? I forget the exact name, but I read about it...
Edit: We seem to have hijacked the discussion...
Re-edit: Mind you, he's right within the context of this particular timeline. As I said above, backwards time travel necessitates another variant of the universe in question (in other words, another timeline).
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
EDIT: Alternate timelines generated from interactions between universes would solve the problem... somewhat. Regardless, as much as the multiverse theories entertain me and make for good sci-fi, I personally see no need to acknowledge them, and really don't believe them.
Because if all the elements were capable of interacting, we'd just have one universe again. A weird one where traveling between segments was difficult, but a single universe nonetheless.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
When an Institution, an Establishment, perpetuates a deliberate lie, that casts doubt on anything said Establishment claims, and becomes little more than an attempt to maintain a 'Party Line' which subsequent scientists either uphold and stick to, or wind up ridiculed and sidelined...
Grow up :rolleyes: