Pagan, Wiccan, Druid worship area at USAFA

[shagadelic]

Actually, shagafag, YOU were the one that said "gravity is just a theory". Re-read where I quoted you. So possibly I was illustrating to everyone here that YOU, yes you, shagafag, don't know what the hell you are talking about. Damn dude, just take 5 minutes away from being a c0cksmoker on flightinfo and go blow your boyfriend before you come on here and pop off with your gayness.

I said evolution is "just a theory" just like gravity is "just a theory". A theory means a whole hell of a lot, it's not a hypothesis. People like to say evolution is not a fact, it's "just a theory". THAT is my point. Evolution rises to the same level as all the other established theories in science. You said yourself you didn't read the thread, so I think you missed the context.

 

[AirCobra]

Originally Posted by shagadelic
Just like gravity is "just a theory", or germ theory, or the theory of relativity. FYI, the term "theory" in science doesn't refer to a hypothesis like it does to a laymen. A "scientific theory" can be disproved, but hasn't been and continues to answer questions and is able to predict. If I drop an apple, I know the theory of gravity tells me it will fall, and does every time. If I look in a strata of rocks that date to the Jurassic period, I should find dinosaurs and their contemporaries, and guess what, I do, every time. You would think if evolution were not a fact they would find just one bunny rabbit in the Cambrian strata. They haven't because bunny rabbits didn't exist back then, just the bunny's common ancestor.

The only way this works is if you can say with complete certainty exactly which species existed in the Jurassic and which ones had become extinct. Can you honestly say you know exactly when the last dinosaur died out and when the first bunny appeared with 100% accuracy? That you know for a fact not a single species from the Jurassic was around say in the last century even. I will ask then how come someone caught a living fish from a species that was supposedly extinct for 65 million years? And how about the recent discover of living dinosaur tissue by Dr. Mary Scwitzer that will likely prove how little we understand about fossilization and throws into question any ideas we have on the true age of dinosaurs. All your post says to me is you would make a very poor scientist, no religion is necessary. Lets skip Dairus and talk about Darwin:

Do you think like Darwin did that Black people were less evolved than humans?

What about Darwin's principle of sexual selection that has been proven wholly inaccurate. Wouldn't you say it is a pretty big part of evolutionary theory to proven total BS? What else may Darwin have been wrong about, or are we just going to continue to try and bend everything into an Darwinian framework no matter how poorly it fits? Is that your kind of science because it seems that way to me.

All I have seen from your posts is you think you have all the answers which to me is a primary indicator of you being the kind of closed minded fundamentalist you attribute to religious people. Perhaps if you had an interest in science outside trying to disprove the existence of God you would actually learn something.

 

[whaleroast]

Wiccans should be relabled as Thickens.

 

[shagadelic]

The only way this works is if you can say with complete certainty exactly which species existed in the Jurassic and which ones had become extinct. Can you honestly say you know exactly when the last dinosaur died out and when the first bunny appeared with 100% accuracy? That you know for a fact not a single species from the Jurassic was around say in the last century even.

There is no evidence a dinosaur existed last century. None. Show me the evidence, and I reevaluate what I believe to be true. I am perfectly able to change my mind if the evidence doesn't work anymore. Why would I believe a dinosaur existed last century? I can't say it's not true with 100 percent certainty, just like I couldn't say with absolute certainty that there is no god, or with absolute certainty that there is not a leprechaun living in my garden. All are equal in that they have no evidence for their existence.

Darwin's theory has been greatly refined with the more evidence we've acquired, just as Newton's theory of gravity has been refined through the theory of relativity. It doesn't mean they were wrong, it just means their initial theories didn't explain everything. Darwin had no idea about gene theory, just like Newton knew nothing of E=MC2. These later contributions enhanced, but did not disprove, the earlier work. Darwin believed species evolved through natural selection. It was his idea, but that has nothing to do with the science today, as it is much beyond his limited understanding of it. No one tries to make the ideas fit what he believed, just that his general idea of evolution through natural selection is correct based on the mountains of evidence that continue to support the theory.
You can point to everything you can to try to say Darwin didn't understand the entire process, but that doesn't change the fact that no one can disprove it, and it would be so easy to disprove. Of course he didn't understand. Hell, we didn't even know about DNA for another 100 years after his life. You guys think science has to be right all the time, 100 percent of the time, or it's bunk and your superstition wins. Let's make a list of every time science went against the church and check the scoreboard. Ummmm, my money's on science.

Back to the fossil record...Find me one dog buried in a strata older than a dinosaur, which should be easy to do if evolution is false. Find ONE. Just find ONE instance where a mammal is in an older strata. That's all it takes. You seem to think by trying to poke holes in the established science, by default, your crazy ideas are right. That's a logical fallacy, as it is clearly not a 50/50 outcome. There is science, and then there are literally thousands of competing crackpot claims. So stop throwing stones, and offer up what you think is correct, then give the evidence backing it up so we can test it for ourselves. Like I said, I'm completely open to new ideas, if they are backed up by evidence. 2000 year old spooky texts written by magic men high on peyote don't count as evidence, btw.

 

[shagadelic]

Wiccans should be relabled as Thickens.

Ummmmm.....I don't get it. Explain maybe?

Thickens:

1 a : to become dense <the mist thickened> b : to become concentrated in numbers, mass, or frequency
2 : to grow blurred or obscure
3 : to grow broader or bulkier
4 : to grow complicated or keen <the plot thickens>
transitive verb
1 a : to make thick, dense, or viscous in consistency <thicken gravy with flour> b : to make close or compact
2 : to increase the depth or diameter of
3 : to make inarticulate : blur <alcohol thickened his speech>

 

[FlyinGuy]

1. I will say it again.....there is no morality in science.

2. If we evolved, there would be tons of evidence of our "migration". There would also be species that are currently between what they were and what they are going to be.

 

[AirCobra]

There is no evidence a dinosaur existed last century. None. Show me the evidence, and I reevaluate what I believe to be true. I am perfectly able to change my mind if the evidence doesn't work anymore. Why would I believe a dinosaur existed last century? I can't say it's not true with 100 percent certainty, just like I couldn't say with absolute certainty that there is no god, or with absolute certainty that there is not a leprechaun living in my garden. All are equal in that they have no evidence for their existence.

Darwin's theory has been greatly refined with the more evidence we've acquired, just as Newton's theory of gravity has been refined through the theory of relativity. It doesn't mean they were wrong, it just means their initial theories didn't explain everything. Darwin had no idea about gene theory, just like Newton knew nothing of E=MC2. These later contributions enhanced, but did not disprove, the earlier work. Darwin believed species evolved through natural selection. It was his idea, but that has nothing to do with the science today, as it is much beyond his limited understanding of it. No one tries to make the ideas fit what he believed, just that his general idea of evolution through natural selection is correct based on the mountains of evidence that continue to support the theory.
You can point to everything you can to try to say Darwin didn't understand the entire process, but that doesn't change the fact that no one can disprove it, and it would be so easy to disprove. Of course he didn't understand. Hell, we didn't even know about DNA for another 100 years after his life. You guys think science has to be right all the time, 100 percent of the time, or it's bunk and your superstition wins. Let's make a list of every time science went against the church and check the scoreboard. Ummmm, my money's on science.

Back to the fossil record...Find me one dog buried in a strata older than a dinosaur, which should be easy to do if evolution is false. Find ONE. Just find ONE instance where a mammal is in an older strata. That's all it takes. You seem to think by trying to poke holes in the established science, by default, your crazy ideas are right. That's a logical fallacy, as it is clearly not a 50/50 outcome. There is science, and then there are literally thousands of competing crackpot claims. So stop throwing stones, and offer up what you think is correct, then give the evidence backing it up so we can test it for ourselves. Like I said, I'm completely open to new ideas, if they are backed up by evidence. 2000 year old spooky texts written by magic men high on peyote don't count as evidence, btw.

Don't let anti religious bigotry overcome you. Nothing I brought up had anything to do with religion. I think evolutionary fundementalists are preventing science from moving forward much more than any religion ever could.

So if you want to talk science well what about the Colecanth? Supposedly extinct for 65 million years when fish had supposedly "evolved" beyond a bony exoskeleton, but somehow the Coleocanth had forgotten to evolve. It doesn't prove anything about religion but it does prove how little we actually know about what species were around and when. So a Coleocanth fossil found in a 65 million year old layer of strata and one found swimming in the ocean of the coast of Africa surely is problematic to evolutionary theory, since it appears evolution seems to skip certain species. Oh but with you qualified strata with "mammal." I guess that means you know that things like tree trunks are found through several layers of strata which shows things contained in layers of strata are not limited to one time period. So the proof you need lies only in mammals, fish and plants don't count, is that what you are saying?

You did not mention the problems with Darwins sexual selection either. Darwin did not understand genes but sexual selection was all his own creation and an essential component in evolutionary theory and natural selection. How much Darwin needs to be shown not scientifically provable before we move on and stop trying to bend evidence to fit evolutionary theory?

What about Dr. Scwitzer? Her discoveries could upset everything we know about fossilization, and the age of fossils. That could mean we really don't know the age of things we find in any layer of strata. Not a crackpot theory at all.

What else have you not looked at? Dinosaur-bird theory which more and more scientists are calling into question, spontaneous RNA which despite thousands of experiements over several decades and manipulation experimental conditions no one can prove ever existed on earth still hasn't happened.

Well what do you say. "Oh it just hasn't been proven yet, but someday it will be?" Isn't that what any religious person says about their faith?

 

[AirCobra]

1. I will say it again.....there is no morality in science.

2. If we evolved, there would be tons of evidence of our "migration". There would also be species that are currently between what they were and what they are going to be.

That was Darwins dilemma, the lack of trasitional species in the fossil record. The search for transitional fossils has become an obsession with the scientific community. Seems like every couple of years their is a new missing link. A few years back it was "Lucy" who now has been shown with pretty good certainty to be a species of ape. I read with great interest how sad scientists who had lost their golden proof of a missing link resorted to again to trying to bend Lucy's failure into an evolutionary framework. They siad early species of humans were able to mate with early species of Chimp, that is why their is no missing link. Never mind there is no physical evidence of either species capable of mating in this way ever existed. Thus is the state of evolutionary science these days. Of course the evolutionary fundemetalist response will be "Its true, it just hasn't been proven yet" which is about as good science as what any fire and brimstone Pentacostal preacher will tell you about Revelation.

 

[psmd0311]

I am always amazed that creationists just seem to delude themselves and say “where is the evidence”

Go to a museum! Go and see!


Australopithecus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens


You can see the migration if you want to, or you can just close your eyes and convince yourself that it cant be right as it doesn't fit in with your bible. I am appalled that you actually wrote

“If we evolved, there would be tons of evidence of our "migration". There would also be species that are currently between what they were and what they are going to be”

Wow! what bubble are you living in?

Shag, good luck in trying to convince people like this. They arent interested in learning, they are just clinging on to blind faith and nothing is going to change their minds.

 

[AirCobra]

I am always amazed that creationists just seem to delude themselves and say “where is the evidence”

Go to a museum! Go and see!


Australopithecus
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens


You can see the migration if you want to, or you can just close your eyes and convince yourself that it cant be right as it doesn't fit in with your bible. I am appalled that you actually wrote

“If we evolved, there would be tons of evidence of our "migration". There would also be species that are currently between what they were and what they are going to be”

Wow! what bubble are you living in?

Shag, good luck in trying to convince people like this. They arent interested in learning, they are just clinging on to blind faith and nothing is going to change their minds.

Creationist huh? Must be like a warm blanket to sterotype people rather than examine your own fundementalist dogma.

Neanderthals were also supposed to be a less evolved forms of humans until it was discovered Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lived at the same time. Same goes with Homo Habilis which you mentioned. There is little scientific consensus on Homo Habilis given the amount of fossils found coexisting with supposedly more evolved species. Don't believe me read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/08cnd-fossil.html?_r=1&ref=science

It is just more of the same, you are trying to fit the latest "missing link" into a Darwinain evolutionary framework. When you said "good luck in trying to convince people like this. They arent interested in learning, they are just clinging on to blind faith and nothing is going to change their minds" were you talking about yourself?

Why don't you do some reading and try again when you have better evidence.

EDIT-I must have mssied on the first pass but Lucy which I mentioned was Australopithecus. There are plenty of Evolutionists that believe if Australopithecus evolved into anything it would be a Gorilla and others who think Australopithecus is nothing more than an extinct speicies of ape. Hardly part of the the ironclad sequence of human evolution you put in your post. Were you just ignoring this too, or perhaps you should call the museum you went to let them know they haven't been giving you the whole story.

 

[whaleroast]

Ummmmm.....I don't get it. Explain maybe?

Thickens:

1 a : to become dense <the mist thickened> b : to become concentrated in numbers, mass, or frequency
2 : to grow blurred or obscure
3 : to grow broader or bulkier
4 : to grow complicated or keen <the plot thickens>
transitive verb
1 a : to make thick, dense, or viscous in consistency <thicken gravy with flour> b : to make close or compact
2 : to increase the depth or diameter of
3 : to make inarticulate : blur <alcohol thickened his speech>

Every wiccan i've ever seen is a thick fat chick.

 

[shagadelic]

Neanderthals were also supposed to be a less evolved forms of humans until it was discovered Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lived at the same time. Same goes with Homo Habilis which you mentioned. There is little scientific consensus on Homo Habilis given the amount of fossils found coexisting with supposedly more evolved species. Don't believe me read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/sc...=1&ref=science

Surprise surprise. We don't know everything. Nobody says we understand the entire process. That's science in general. You go with the best evidence available, and when new evidence comes up, you revise what you know. Only religion claims to know the absolute truth....wait a sec, I think I've just had an epiphany. You guys are right, science doesn't know everything, therefore, lets abandon it. I'm going for the spooky guy in the sky theory, at least then I know I'll be right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

 

[AirCobra]

Surprise surprise. We don't know everything. Nobody says we understand the entire process. That's science in general. You go with the best evidence available, and when new evidence comes up, you revise what you know. Only religion claims to know the absolute truth....wait a sec, I think I've just had an epiphany. You guys are right, science doesn't know everything, therefore, lets abandon it. I'm going for the spooky guy in the sky theory, at least then I know I'll be right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

You know when you debate an issue you are supposed to refute the other persons argument, not prove it. I said science shows their is a lot we don't know about everything from dinosaurs, to fossils, to the origins of man. You went on about evidence from Cambrian Strata, bunnies, and men, and dinosaurs, all to come back and tell me everything you just said may not be accurate given the nature of science. Well heck that is what I have been saying all along. All you are doing is saying I have no idea what is true, I just know whatever you are saying isn't true. That is why you can't be taken seriously, and these discussions are pointless. You have a simple obsession, you hate Religion. I still never brought up anything about Creationism or religion, but you can't keep it away from it can you? Why don't you just grow up? You want to talk science, then talk science.

 

[Nado]

1. I will say it again.....there is no morality in science.

Morality in science isn't the point. I HAVE TWO BRAIN CELLS TO RUB TOGETHER that tell me hitting my neighbor on the head is a bad thing. I don't need a space god to tell me that.

Look at the ten commandments for example. It is easy to see how in their times they were the ten necessary 'rules' needed to keep people in line through fear and threats of 'eternal damnation'. Many philosophers and scientists paid with their lives proposing thoughts and ideas that would loosen the churches grip on power.

I would submit that the first commandment should be changed to 'priests shall not fondle little boys and the Church should not cover up the fact that it happens' in keeping with our time, at least in the Catholic church.

In keeping things simple, once you accept the fact that god, or whatever you call him is a man made invention used to explain what at the time was unexplainable (earthquakes, eclipses, weather) and as a tool for priests to retain supernatural power over their flock, things become a lot clearer.

Atheists are selling uncertainty, and that is humble. Anyone who says they know what happens after they die is surely not telling the truth. How could they possibly, without any doubt, know this? They posses no special knowledge and thus for lack of a better word are not humble.

Perhaps the religious should examine why they are good. Is it because they are afraid of punishment from god, or are they naturally good?
Then why is an atheist good with no fear of retribution of a heaven or he**.

 

[AirCobra]

Morality in science isn't the point. I HAVE TWO BRAIN CELLS TO RUB TOGETHER that tell me hitting my neighbor on the head is a bad thing. I don't need a space god to tell me that.

Look at the ten commandments for example. It is easy to see how in their times they were the ten necessary 'rules' needed to keep people in line through fear and threats of 'eternal damnation'. Many philosophers and scientists paid with their lives proposing thoughts and ideas that would loosen the churches grip on power.

I would submit that the first commandment should be changed to 'priests shall not fondle little boys and the Church should not cover up the fact that it happens' in keeping with our time, at least in the Catholic church.

In keeping things simple, once you accept the fact that god, or whatever you call him is a man made invention used to explain what at the time was unexplainable (earthquakes, eclipses, weather) and as a tool for priests to retain supernatural power over their flock, things become a lot clearer.

Atheists are selling uncertainty, and that is humble. Anyone who says they know what happens after they die is surely not telling the truth. How could they possibly, without any doubt, know this? They posses no special knowledge and thus for lack of a better word are not humble.

Perhaps the religious should examine why they are good. Is it because they are afraid of punishment from god, or are they naturally good?
Then why is an atheist good with no fear of retribution of a heaven or he**.

Now only if you could find someone that this applies to. I can only speak for what I know about Christianity but the point there is that we all sin and fall short of the grace of God. A Christian is supposed to humble themselves before God and say they, like everyone else, they are not good, but sinners. Jesus says "Why do you call me good? No one is good--except God alone." The Atheist you described is really an agnostic. The true Atheist says they KNOW God does not exist. It is the Atheist who displays the prideful boasting saying I don't need to humble myself. You got it all wrong as far as Christianity is concerned.

The other point you made and one I keep seeing is the "man made" thing. Like "nothing in the Bible can be true because it was written by men". How does this apply? You have faith that all sorts of man made things and concepts are real and true. Should I not believe in mathematics, physics or gravity because they are all man made? If you say that those things are provable then what about theoretical physics, theoretical mathematics, and probability. Are things like black holes and the speed of light unreal because they are based on theory and probability and thus man made?