Evolution, It's only a theory

reply to post by B.A.C.


Considering the site that carries it as news. I doubt any real scientists have actually examined the prints. Any one of a number of hominids steps into some wet sediment, and over a million years later it's a human footprint? I can say that Homo Sapiens didn't lay that print down unless it was done recently with tools.

Originally posted by jfj123

Actually he's (andre) shown a very good understanding of the topic. Your failure to recognize this shows your lack of understanding.

for you to say this assumes you know what more. Ill assume this is based on how fond you are of your opionions but so far your opinions have not impressed nor has andre's and that's my opinion.

IF YOU would consider the facts however, you would agree, andre knows very little about Science, the scientific method in addition to not knowing that evolution is not a fact, it is merely a theory and a lousy one at that.

Almost nobody here has attacked religion in any way. Your perception of the attack is your problem. This isn't about religion, this is about science. There is a difference.

key word "almost nobody" but how many have is what you ignored and why you have is also known but when you say "your perception ot the attack is your problem" NO it is HIS or anyone else making them as it has nothing to do with this thread as you admit in your post. Do you proof read them before you hit the post reply button?

And, you've decided that evolution is contrary to that of religion. That's your problem but it still doesn't change that the theory of evolution is real and is supported by scientific evidence.

the theory is real and is supported by many followers of the religion but the evidence is all based on the interpretation of same and is subject to speculation which more times than not has a mechanism for bias and most anyone who uses a mind of their own, is castigated and black listed by the science community usually the presumption is religion based hatred or prejudice and this has been proven by the united states congress and a movie depicting this phenomena by Ben Stein is one of the best movies for young people to understand this prejudice not only exists we see it just bty the kind of criticism we have seen by the so called science community condemning the movie as we all expected. Using the same typical ridicule and sophistry Darwinists rely on when they have nothing more substantial than their own religion of evolution to protect.





[edit on 8-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Fromabove
To the OP. So what's the point. There can be separate theories using the same tangible evidence. I could say just as theoretically that God created the universe and life as you could say that it just all happened all on it's own just because. This debate is far from over.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Fromabove]

Actually no you couldn't say, "theoretically that god created the universe" as you have no evidence to support that statement as a theory. I guess you could call it a hypothesis but not a theory.

I don't see why not, after all you've been calling evolution a theory without evidence to support it but that's only because evolutionists consider conjecture as evidence and only when it suits THEM and the religion of evolution

Originally posted by jfj123
I like the way you mock the theory of evolution yet you've never been able to post any scientific evidence to discredit it

discredit what? I can say the same thing about finding evidence to discredit the flying spaghtti monster

You're also failing to realize that your faith and evolution do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.

ostensibly, just look at atheists how they have faith in evolution

I find it amusing that you are trying to taunt those who understand evolution by calling them darwitts.

and this should bother them as much as it bothers you when ever darwitts call a christian a "fundie" but I doubt it it would.

You come up with a thinly veiled insult to avoid getting spanked by the mods. The simple fact that you're getting pleasure by repeating this silly insults shows that you're simply not mature enough to have an adult discussion about the subject of this thread.

Ouch you really nailed em there wow! can I borrow that line for when you and your darwittian clan call us "xtians" or "fundies" to shame them into a more adult behavior or let me guess YOU are a Christian ???



[edit on 8-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by andre18
Can we all agree evolution is a fact with the theory explaning the fact?

Yes!!!!

I can agree to that. Now we can argue about the Theory. At least now I can say we are at a good starting point.

I apologize but after some thinking last night I've come to a realisation that evolution is not a 'fact.' So i honestly admit to being a little confused myself and as being the creator of this thread i apologize for any confusion I've caused. I don't think evolution is a "fact". I think the diversity of life on earth is a fact. I think natural selection is a fact. DNA is a fact. However, even though there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution being true and also that it has been heavily tested and has held up to that testing. I do not think it is a "fact" - think of it like this...

There is a dead body (fact) with a knife in its back (fact) with another person's fingerprints on the knife (fact) and the body is badly bruised as if it has been kicked after the victim died (fact) and the head has been cut off (fact) and put on a pole (fact) with a note that says "That will teach you!" (fact) and there is a video tape of someone stabbing, kicking and beheading the victim. It looks like a murder but it could all have been faked to make it seem like murder.

The theory of the detectives is that this is a murder. Notice that the word "murder" appears in the description of the events and it is the name of the "theory".It's kinda like that with evolution.The fossil record is a fact. The DNA evidence is a fact. The observations by Darwin and the list of millions of observations made by countless scientists in the last hundred years are facts. Rocks dated by separate laboritories in blind tests fit together fact. The changes mankind can make to dogs, birds, cattle, via selective breeding are facts. Mutations are facts. That modern animals do not appear in earlier rock strata are facts. It looks a lot like over vast time evolution has taken place but it could be an all-powerful God playing tricks on us so he can burn the most rational people, or just to be a jackass..

The theory that makes the most sense to people who have studied these facts is evolution. The Theory is the explanation that explains the long list of facts.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by andre18]

Originally posted by Fundie
What a shame I stumbled into this thread so late. I would have loved to once again stood beside Aerm... and others

I would have enjoyed that fundie, and as usual your posts prove your above average grasp of science. I too have seen the logical fallacy for assuming the consequent given by Darwits for years and they ignore the call and just continue blathering about exaggerated sums of evidence as proof or showing hatchet jobs of those that have challenged their religion of evolution by assuming they are all creationists who have nothing to show as if that is a requirment for anyone having the right to say anything abhout evolution.

I think this thread has been much more successful than the last one you and I were posting opposite 8 6th graders ad-homing us getting their yaya's and high fiving each other for it.

The battle between these age old arguments rages on but I have faith and they don't. That in and of itself is all I need and where their religion of atheism dressed up as evolution science is faith in man and one thing I know about man is this,,

man is lame and so is man's science

reply to post by andre18


You're a little late with this argument as Jphish has already responded to this argument and done so quite successfully too.

Your analogy is a lot like one I gave here called the parable of the candle
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Here is a great book about the so called scietific method

Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method
Author: Henry H. Bauer


Paper
978-0-252-06436-4
$22.00
Pub Date: 1994
Pages: 192 pages




What is science? Is social science a science? Why are more and more so-called scientific discoveries being exposed as outright frauds? Henry Bauer tackles these and many more intriguing questions that are emerging from within the academic and scientific communities and attracting attention from the popular media and the general public.
Whether one is a specialist or generalist, scientist or humanist, thinker or activist, it is important to understand the place of science and technology in modern life. Popular views about the nature of science and scientific activity contain serious misconceptions that were discarded decades ago by most historians and philosophers of science. The perpetuation of these misconceptions usually surface in the form of frustrating and unproductive discussions about everything from setting policy and defining technical matters to whether one individual's point of view is "right" because it is supported by "scientific facts."
According to Bauer, the most serious and widespread misconceptions are that "science" can be discussed as though all sciences share a great deal in common and as though "the scientific method" characterizes all sciences. "Science," argues Bauer, "can be understood only if one recognizes it as a quest by fallible human beings who have evolved ways of interacting that help them gain relatively objective knowledge." In other words, science is a social activity, not simply the result of impersonal methods.
Concern has recently arisen over the quality of American education and our declining scientific and research orientation. Debates are emerging about what direction public universities should be taking as we head into the twenty-fist century. Why and to what extent should society support basic scientific research? What should everyone in a democratic society know about science? This book will help readers come to an informed understanding about the place of science and technology in today's world.
"Provocative. . . . Bauer argues that science does not proceed by the scientific method. If it did, experiments would inspire hypotheses which would then be tested until they generated reliable theories. As Watson and Crick's work [on DNA] shows, an elegant idea is often a headier lure than mere facts."--Newsweek

"Sound, sensible . . . and very easy to read. . . . I would strongly recommend this book to anyone who hasn't yet heard that the scientific method is a myth."--Science

"This is a book that every science teacher should read and consider. It will certainly affect their views of what science really is and influence their teaching."--The Science Teacher

"Bauer has undertaken to examine some widely held misunderstandings about how scientists work. . . . In describing these myths and exhorting his readers to abandon them, Bauer provides an excellent account of the main processes of modern science."--Journal of Scientific Exploration
Henry H. Bauer, professor of chemistry and science at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, is the author of The Enigma of Loch Ness: Making Sense of a Mystery and Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Henry H. Bauer?

en.wikipedia.org...

Bauer is a AIDS denialist and opposes affirmative action.

Bauer developed an interest in the Loch Ness Monster and based his belief in the Monster's existence on a film made by prominent “Nessie” enthusiast Tim Dinsdale

The Memoirs of an Unreconstructed Dean, Bauer writes, "I regard homosexuality as an aberration or illness, not as an ‘equally valid life-style’ or whatever the current euphemism is." In his book, Bauer attributes the perceived problem of homosexuality to genetic, hereditary, and environmental factors, and suggests that the free speech and other civil rights of homosexuals should be withdrawn to prevent what Bauer views as the negative effects of homosexuality from spreading

Enough said.

en.wikipedia.org...

AIDS denialism refers to the views of a loosely connected group of individuals and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). HIV/AIDS denialists prefer the terms "rethinker" or "dissident". Some denialist groups reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but argue that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS.

en.wikipedia.org...

The term affirmative action refers to policies that take gender, race, or ethnicity into account in an attempt to promote equal opportunity.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by andre18]

Originally posted by andre18
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Henry H. Bauer?

en.wikipedia.org...

Bauer is a AIDS denialist and opposes affirmative action.

Bauer developed an interest in the Loch Ness Monster and based his belief in the Monster's existence on a film made by prominent “Nessie” enthusiast Tim Dinsdale

Bauer also drew criticism for his denunciation of homosexuality.[14] In his pseudonymously-written memoir, To Rise Above Principle: The Memoirs of an Unreconstructed Dean, Bauer writes, "I regard homosexuality as an aberration or illness, not as an ‘equally valid life-style’ or whatever the current euphemism is." In his book, Bauer attributes the perceived problem of homosexuality to genetic, hereditary, and environmental factors, and suggests that the free speech and other civil rights of homosexuals should be withdrawn to prevent what Bauer views as the negative effects of homosexuality from spreading

Enough said.

en.wikipedia.org...

AIDS denialism refers to the views of a loosely connected group of individuals and organizations who deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). HIV/AIDS denialists prefer the terms "rethinker" or "dissident". Some denialist groups reject the existence of HIV, while others accept that HIV exists but argue that it is a harmless passenger virus and not the cause of AIDS.

en.wikipedia.org...

The term affirmative action refers to policies that take gender, race, or ethnicity into account in an attempt to promote equal opportunity.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by andre18]

Yeah?? so what? Richard Dawkins is a God denialist, does that mean all his other books about Biology are wrong?

Affirmative Action should have been done away with long ago

You dis the truth about this accurate portrayal of science and the way the scientific method is being taught as if you read the book.

Did you read it ?

reply to post by Aermacchi

Yeah?? so what? Richard Dawkins is a God denialist, does that mean all his other books about Biology are wrong?

And the difference is Richard Dawkins is denying something that requires faith to believe it - where as this Bauer guy denies aids which has evidence to back it up. Bauer also believes in the Loch Ness Monster lol, and is against gay people and equal opportunity. You can't take what this guy says with any merit because the stuff he believes in discredits him beyond belief.

Affirmative Action should have been done away with long ago

So you're against equal opportunities as well? So now at least i know what kind of person i'm dealing with.

reply to post by melatonin


I have to agree with you.... When evidence or truths are put right in front of you, you will deny it... not I, but YOU.

We can dance around scientific methodology all you like. But your dogmatic stance shows YOU have little understanding what constitutes reliability and validity.

Transparent? Good, I'm not playing games of denial and obstination. And to paraphrase you... who cares what you think.... especially when you hide behind poorly veiled insults and barely held contempt. You've shown you're about as objective and scientific as the rest of the wannabe erudites.

Originally posted by andre18
And the difference is Richard Dawkins is denying something that requires faith to believe it - where as this Bauer guy denies aids which has evidence to back it up. Bauer also believes in the Loch Ness Monster lol, and is against gay people and equal opportunity. You can't take what this guy says with any merit because the stuff he believes in discredits him beyond belief.

Jeez andre you haven't even read your own links reports have you.

First Richard Dawkins does have faith in evolution the same as you do.

You believe in it don't you?

There ya go.

Bauer never said he doesn't believe in AIDS you are making things up now. Please show the quote where he says this?

I never said I was against equal opportunities but ill tell you what, YOU are if you buy that bullpuckey Affirmative action because affirmative action extols mediocrity and punishes high achievement based on race and not performance.

Bauer dissed it for similar reasons.

Originally posted by andre18

The theory of the detectives is that this is a murder. Notice that the word "murder" appears in the description of the events and it is the name of the "theory".It's kinda like that with evolution.The fossil record is a fact. The DNA evidence is a fact. The observations by Darwin and the list of millions of observations made by countless scientists in the last hundred years are facts. Rocks dated by separate laboritories in blind tests fit together fact. The changes mankind can make to dogs, birds, cattle, via selective breeding are facts. Mutations are facts. That modern animals do not appear in earlier rock strata are facts. It looks a lot like over vast time evolution has taken place but it could be an all-powerful God playing tricks on us so he can burn the most rational people, or just to be a jackass..

The theory that makes the most sense to people who have studied these facts is evolution. The Theory is the explanation that explains the long list of facts.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by andre18]

The fossil record is a fact.

what we interpret from the fossils found in it is subject to speculation

The observations by Darwin and the list of millions of observations made by countless scientists in the last hundred years are facts.

Their interpretations of their observations are the subject of much speculation

Rocks dated by separate laboritories in blind tests fit together fact.

The benchmark age they start with is anyones guess hence is up for more speculation

the changes mankind can make to dogs, birds, cattle, via selective breeding are facts.

Yet all of them are still Dogs, Birds, Cattle etc etc et-tedious,cetera

That modern animals do not appear in earlier rock strata are facts. It looks a lot like over vast time evolution has taken place but it could be an all-powerful God playing tricks on us so he can burn the most rational people, or just to be a jackass..

you say it could be? more speculation and by the way, when you say god is being a jack ass, I speculate he is only being that way to you.

reply to post by Aermacchi


Aermacchi.....

dogs, cats, cattle....even birds....(well, not so much birds....unless you include ducks and chickens)....again, these examples are, really US, we Humans, attempting to behave like YOUR God!!!

Yes, it is true....even though various dogs look very, very dissimilar, to OUR eyes, due to our meddling....their sperm and ova still combine!!!

The bred-in genetic traits still combine, and cause a different-looking, but still viable, member of the same species to be born.

A dog and a cat cannot mate....their sperm and ova are not compatible

But, here's the rub!!! A person of Chinese descent and a Maori from Australia can mate....they look quite different, doncha think?

It is in the chromosomes, and the DNA....and NO!!! Not every sexual congress will be viable, even within a species!!!!!

I realize this is opening up a very OBVIOUS area for you to attack....because I believe you have a very closed mind, on this subject.

What has been missing from all of these discussions is the very, very long time involved, through hundreds or thousands of generations, and the occasional 'mutation', or 'copy error' in the DNA molecule....that result in 'macro-evolution'.

Quite a number of these 'accidental' mutations result in the death of a branch of said species. Some species find their niche, and see no need to 'adapt'....not unless or until there is an environmental pressure exerted.

We....we are apes....not exactly apes, but a 'class' of a 'class' not to far removed.

Only thing that makes us 'dominant'.....is our pre-frontal cortex in the brain.

Still, we are like 'babes-in-the-woods' in the Grander Scheme of Things....

First Richard Dawkins does have faith in evolution the same as you do.

Shocked and amazed! Faith means to believe without evidence - evolution has evidents. Also, evolution is not a belief system - that would be akin to calling the theory of gravity a belief system.

Bauer never said he doesn't believe in AIDS you are making things up now. Please show the quote where he says this?

What are you blind?
en.wikipedia.org...

Bauer is a AIDS denialist

Bauer became a proponent of AIDS denialism several years after retiring from Virginia Tech. He has asserted that there are "substantive grounds for doubting that HIV is the necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS and that antiretroviral treatment is unambiguously beneficial."

In his 2007 book, The Origins, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, Bauer questions whether HIV exists, claiming that HIV tests are not accurate and that AIDS death statistics are faked by a conspiracy of the media, scientists and pharmaceutical companies.

what is this guy smoking



[edit on 9-3-2009 by andre18]

reply to post by andre18


It's quite obvious, based on this alleged 'scientist's' views.....and I'm referring to 'Bauer'....he is a fraud, a homophobic aberration masquerading as a 'scientist'.

Did I mention he seems to also be a religious fanatic?? Otherwise, he would not hold the views attributed to him.

So far, on this thread.....what I've observed.....the 'devout' for some reason believe, if not the strict interpretation, at least ONE version of 'creationism' citing from sources that are, at best....tragically shown to be unreliable.

When backed into a corner, these people will cite the 'bible'.....

...also shown to be unreliable. (Oh, Really?!? Well, yes....really....look it up!!!!)

Here's the funny part.....ATS is a World-Wide Forum, no? Yet, what do I see the most??? Very ignorant posts....as of late. Now, I won't say they are equally from any particular point on the planet...based on idioms used, and obvious spelling mistakes, I can infer quite a lot.

What I am trying to say here is.....it seems to come down to, on basis, bashing of Christianity. Now, just to be clear, I am NOT defending Christianity, nor any OTHER religion in this post.

I'd, personally like to see ALL religion erased from the Human psyche......but, in time, we might grow out of it......

IN THE MEAN TIME! I would like to see 'evolution' discussed WITHOUT the various religiosity sprinkled in!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by John Matrix
Human foot prints found in solid rock and said to be 1.5 million years old are proof that humans and apes are distinct species and always have been. See the full article here:

www.icr.org...

Here is some additional information about this.

Ancient footprints found at Rutgers' Koobi Fora Field School show that some of the earliest humans walked like us and did so on anatomically modern feet 1.5 million years ago.

Notice where it says, "earliest humans walked LIKE us? And didn't say were the SAME as us?

The footprints were discovered in two 1.5 million-year-old sedimentary layers near Ileret in northern Kenya. These rarest of impressions yielded information about soft tissue form and structure not normally accessible in fossilized bones. The Ileret footprints constitute the oldest evidence of an essentially modern human-like foot anatomy.

ESSENTIALLY MODERN
HUMAN-LIKE
not
MODERN AND HUMAN

The footprints show a pronounced human-like arch and short toes, typically associated with an upright bipedal stance.

Again notice HUMAN-LIKE ?

Based on size of the footprints and their modern anatomical characteristics, the authors attribute the prints to the hominid Homo ergaster, or early Homo erectus as it is more generally known. This was the first hominid to have had the same body proportions (longer legs and shorter arms) as modern Homo sapiens. Various H. ergaster or H. erectus remains have been found in Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa, with dates consistent with the Ileret footprints.

So now we have a good idea of who left the prints - Homo erectus.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7b742fea7bc.jpg[/atsimg]

If you'll notice in the picture, Homo ergaster is about 1.5 million years back in our family tree and is NOT a modern human (homo sapiens).

Other hominid fossil footprints dating to 3.6 million years ago had been discovered in 1978 by Mary Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. These are attributed to the less advanced Australopithecus afarensis, a possible ancestral hominid. The smaller, older Laetoli prints show indications of upright bipedal posture but possess a shallower arch and a more ape-like, divergent big toe.

Now this is interesting. Here we have evidence of footprints 3.6 million years old attributed to Australopithecus afarensis-an even earlier relative.

Now here's a bit of background of the professor who excavated/investigated the prints:

Harris is a professor of anthropology at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, member of the Center for Human Evolutionary Studies and director of the Koobi Fora Field Project. Harris is also director of the field school which Rutgers University operates in collaboration with the National Museums of Kenya.

source: www.sciencedaily.com...




[edit on 9-3-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by John Matrix
Human foot prints found in solid rock and said to be 1.5 million years old are proof that humans and apes are distinct species and always have been. See the full article here:

www.icr.org...

Now lets deal with the link you've provided.
Your link references the LIVESCIENCE article. Here are some quotes from that livescience article

The researchers identified the footprints as probably belonging to a member of Homo ergaster, an early form of Homo erectus. Such prints include modern foot features such as a rounded heel, a human-like arch and a big toe that sits parallel to other toes.

By contrast, apes have more curved fingers and toes made for grasping tree branches. The earliest human ancestors, such as Australopithecus afarensis, still possessed many ape-like features more than 2 million years ago — the well-known "Lucy" specimen represents one such example.

Modern feet mark just one of several dramatic shifts in early humans, specifically regarding the appearance of Homo erectus around 2 million years ago. Homo erectus is the first hominid to have the same body proportions as modern Homo sapiens.

Now let's take a look at your link which states the following:
www.icr.org...

Anthropologist John Harris of Rutgers University remarked after considering the creatures that left these tracks, “We’re seeing a very different hominid at this stage.”2 Indeed, the human form is “very different” from apes and always has been.4

Now here is what the LIVESCIENCE article really said
www.livescience.com...

"We're seeing a very different hominid at this stage," Harris said, pointing to both an increase in size and change in stride during the relatively short time between Australopithecus (the first in this genus lived about 4 million years ago and the last died out between 3 million and 2 million years ago) and Homo erectus. The latter hominids would have been able to travel more quickly and efficiently over larger areas.

Now here's the interesting part.
You'll notice that this part of your article says:

Anthropologist John Harris of Rutgers University remarked after considering the creatures that left these tracks, “We’re seeing a very different hominid at this stage.”2 Indeed, the human form is “very different” from apes and always has been.4

You'll notice that reference 2 quotes John Harris and the link for quote 2 takes us DIRECTLY to the LIVESCIENCE article which they refer to throughout your article.
Then, as you read on, you'll notice reference 4. This link does NOT take you to another part of the LIVESCIENCE article, it takes you to an article on irc.org. The same website you posted.
www.icr.org...

So the irc.org article makes it seem as if John Harris has been quoted saying, "Indeed, the human form is “very different” from apes and always has been.4"
He in fact never says that in either article.

Seems like irc.org is deliberately twisting facts and making up quotes so their articles seem more scientific.....hmmmm. Well I think we can add this site to the non-reliable pile.




[edit on 9-3-2009 by jfj123]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Still waiting for a response from you about the feathered dinosaurs Aermacchi...

Or are you just going to declare them all to be fakes that have been thrown together and ignore them?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by ShiningSabrewolf

 

You forgot T-Rex.

They have been found to have down when young.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Really? I can't seem to find anything on that .

Here's an interesting article on dinosaurs from 2007, including another feathered dinosaur, Gigantoraptor, and Microraptor that I came across while looking for it though

[edit on 9-3-2009 by ShiningSabrewolf]