Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
truethat

The Missing Link

400 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

truethat

Darwin was fighting SCIENTISTS. That's my point. The community is something different that the discipline. The community is much like a religious community where certain ideas are favored. Its not this open ended search for knowledge that people like to pretend it is.

I see a SCIENTIST is questioning the way other scientists have agreed upon the way bones fossilize. And its pretty interesting to me how little press this story has gotten.

I consider this pretty fascinating. Most people I speak to have never heard of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

Again why? For you to be right it would not just have to be the paleontologists that were wrong but the geologists too. Much of the dating of fossils is done by understanding the geological processes that lay down the rock and soil strata.

You do not believe in these scientific theories, that is your right, but you present no evidence as to why you are right and the worlds scientific community are wrong. Then you get angry when people ask you to back up your claims. I do not understand you at all.

Again why? Because they are the ones asking ME to believe their theory. That's why. I don't need to come up with proof in order to ask a question. If I question something and its that simple, they should be able to answer it very quickly. But if they CAN'T answer my question then why do they expect me to believe them? I don't believe RELIGION for the same reason. They can't answer my questions. I need proof. From all sides.

Do I question all scientists? Yes. I question everything I am TOLD to believe.

Sure. Exactly. I'm not a scientist but I have a big problem with people "coming up with numbers" and not seeing that they are PEOPLE deciding these numbers and theories and equations. Its not as if we have some actual evidence that is 100% proof of any of these theories.

The geological processes that lay down rock and soil strata are decided upon by PEOPLE. The earth didn't "tell us" we assumed.

See this is my point. You can prove alot of things. You can see it with your own eyes and you can prove it.

But many of the theories that are the backbone of other theories are not provable. This is why there is such a push to teach evolution in schools. You see scientists say that this is a foundation theory upon which other theories are built. Which is why questioning the foundation theory causes such an uproar.

But if your honest effort is to get at the truth, you'd welcome the questions. It seems to me that scientists spend a great deal of effort to come up with THE ANSWER and to have it questioned by someone who doesn't have experience in the field makes them angry.

But to me those are the best questions and it should be something they are willing to explain.

Edited by truethat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina

Just to go back to something at the start of this thread...humans didn't evolve from apes, humans are in fact a species of ape. While I'm aware many people seem to find this idea entirerly offensive, that doesn't stop it being the case.

Honestly, I don't know what the problem is...science will tell you that a spider is an arachnid, that a dolphin is a delphinidae, that a bear is an ursidae...but christ, the second that it's raised that humans are apes, and everyone goes mad. I'm sorry to tell you, but it's simply the case.

It was also earlier asked why "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"...now, the fact that were are apes notwithstanding, I shall answer the question in the simplest possible way: When you were born, did all your relatives suddenly die?

The reasons chimps and other apes are around is because they evolved from the same common ancestor as humans did; we didn't evolve from them anymore than your cousin gave birth to you. Natural selection will not simply whipe out an entire family of animals simply because one of them is more advanced than the others...the only reason for another species of apes to become extinct would be if we were directly competing with them at some stage in the past; which of course we haven't been (they probably owe their survival to this, in fact, because there ARE species of apes that have become extinct through competition with modern man, and our more direct ancestors).

In any case, Truethat, could you please try and calm down? You're going on something or a rampage about being called ignorant or stupid, when the only person to even mention those words has been you...the only person who has lost there temper thus far in this thread is yourself; if you calm down a little, you'll find people more willing to address your points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

I see a SCIENTIST is questioning the way other scientists have agreed upon the way bones fossilize. And its pretty interesting to me how little press this story has gotten.

I consider this pretty fascinating. Most people I speak to have never heard of this.

Yes Dr Mary Schweitzer is saying that fossilisation is not fully understood. That is a hugely different thing to questioning the Theory of Evolution or that the fossils are tens of millions of years old. You are doing that, she is not. That it why there is not a lot of coverage because it is not a major story. She also has evidence that you you do not seem to be able to present for your opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

Exactly, IAMS fossilization happens when... actually in this case I think you'd understand better if I made an example. I'll try and keep it simple as I'm shattered.

When an animal die's near a river, and that river then floods, the river deposits silt and sand over the animal, this process is continuous and eventually forms a sedimentary rock. The animal matter than transforms into mineral and hardens leaving either an imprint in the rock or leaving the form of it's bone.

The fossils are not the actual bone, the "bone" we find of dinosaurs are mineral. This armadillo you found was not in the right environment to become a fossil. fossils are kinda hard to produce, hence we do not find dinosaur remains all over the place.

To help Lel explain... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/d...making_fossils/ All you have to do is click on the picture and then click on the question marks to see how fossils are made...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Exactly, IAMS fossilization happens when... actually in this case I think you'd understand better if I made an example. I'll try and keep it simple as I'm shattered.

When an animal die's near a river, and that river then floods, the river deposits silt and sand over the animal, this process is continuous and eventually forms a sedimentary rock. The animal matter than transforms into mineral and hardens leaving either an imprint in the rock or leaving the form of it's bone.

The fossils are not the actual bone, the "bone" we find of dinosaurs are mineral. This armadillo you found was not in the right environment to become a fossil. fossils are kinda hard to produce, hence we do not find dinosaur remains all over the place.

I understand that Lel, but if like you say what is left is an imprint of the animal, how do you remove tissue from it? They actually had to find bone, not a mineralized form in the shape of the bone, but actual bone, and more incredibly, soft tissue of some sort. Please people, coarbon dating has now been proven to be untrustworthy for anything beyond 5,000 years, much less 65 million.

Addtionally, Lel have you heard what happened in some of the lakes around Mt. St. Helens after the explosion? Stratification amazingly similar to that which we are assured takes millions of years to form. I believe (I am no geologist) that one of the accepted ways of determining the age of a folssil is simply by where it's found in strata (I'm sure someone will be along shortly to correct me, but unable to actually explain the true method). Also, recently scientists have found that petrification, under certain conditions which may or may not be fairly routine can begin occuring in less than 20 years. So are these fossils really 65 million years old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina

Well, what stratum something is found in isn't the only means of determining its age - it can simply be used as an estimation, but anything from an earthquake, to a volcanic erruption could change where the fossil lies. There are a variety of methods od dating a fossil...carbon dating was used until recently, but more accurate methods are always being developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

Thanks for all the answers guys. I think IamsSon makes the same point I am though.

Why the push to teach this in schools? Why not wait? Why not allow this to be taught in college? Seems weird to me. It seems like they want to push this idea even though they aren't sure. I don't get that. I also don't get why they won't allow criticism of the theory.

The numbers decided were ALL decided by people. There is no evidence otherwise.

Additionally the bone was "cracked open" and they found the tissue. She also stated in the article that they did not typically crack open dinosaur bones and that soft tissue was found in other bones when they went back to them and cracked them open. This was a bone, not an imprint of a bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Well, what stratum something is found in isn't the only means of determining its age - it can simply be used as an estimation, but anything from an earthquake, to a volcanic erruption could change where the fossil lies. There are a variety of methods od dating a fossil...carbon dating was used until recently, but more accurate methods are always being developed.

And yet,... despite the fact that scientists have very quietly had to admit that carbon dating was incorrect beyond the 5,000 year mark, apparently the new dating methods support the incorrect information produced by carbon dating since the age of things determined through carbon dating is still the reported age or fairly close. So are these new methods any more accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

Thanks for all the answers guys. I think IamsSon makes the same point I am though.

Why the push to teach this in schools? Why not wait? Why not allow this to be taught in college? Seems weird to me. It seems like they want to push this idea even though they aren't sure. I don't get that. I also don't get why they won't allow criticism of the theory.

The numbers decided were ALL decided by people. There is no evidence otherwise.

Additionally the bone was "cracked open" and they found the tissue. She also stated in the article that they did not typically crack open dinosaur bones and that soft tissue was found in other bones when they went back to them and cracked them open. This was a bone, not an imprint of a bone.

Because not everyone is going to go to a college where these things are tought. Like myself. I went to an art college. sciences like this were not tought there. That is why they should be tought in highschool. To reach young minds, and inspire them to go to college to learn more, should they wish it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina
The numbers decided were ALL decided by people. There is no evidence otherwise.

I think you need to elaborate further one what you mean by 'decided by people'. Nobody, at any stage, has sat around a table and said "Let's say this fossil is this old, and that fossil is that old..." The age of anything is determined by various processes.

As a scientist, let me assure you that expiriments do not make allowances for what a scientist may or may not want to see :P It simply gives you results, and if you don't like them then that's hard lines...science has no room for likes or dislikes, it's all about evidence or lack of evidence.

Hmm...reading your link, there was actually a thread about that very article about a year back. Let me see if I can dig it up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

I didn't say that scientists sat around the table making up numbers. But scientists made up the way to determine the numbers.

I'll give you an example.

I say that all the children born in an area that used chemical warfare suffered birth defects.

To say this I need some sort of a timeline. I have evidence of birth defects. I have evidence that children were all born in a certain area. But I need to determine when they were born and what happened in the area in which they were born.

So say the area is the Persian Gulf. And we see evidence of birth defects for the use of a certain chemical weapon. This is evidence that we can see.

But say I want to determine why ancient Egyptians all had long heads. And say I decide that its a "birth defect" Say I don't have any written record or evidence of their lifestyles. I look for something that happened in the area. I see that there is a crater near Egypt and I hypothesize that a meteor struck the area and thus the radiation lead to the birth defects.

Well the truth is that these people liked to stretch their heads. It was entirely cosmetic. But because I have no real evidence I am going on my own presumptions. When I look at science this is what I see. And what bothers me is the lack of self awareness that people have their own prejudices and can make mistakes.

We can't prove any of the stuff in the past. We can only theorize unless we have a written record of some sort. Without a statement there is no fact and even that statement may be corrupt.

But without this, its just guessing. You can't go backward because of the "butterfly effect" anything could have happened. You don't know.

So why teach it as our best guess? Why do we need to have an answer. Why can't "We don't know" be tolerated.

To me, the need in the science community to come up with an answer is equivalent to old religions drive to have an answer. Science in the here and now, dealing with things we can actually prove is one thing.

Science dealing with the origins of life is simply a modern religion to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaftsbury
The paleontologist and her colleagues removed mineral fragments from the interior of the femur by soaking it in a weak acid. The fossil dissolved, exposing a flexible, stretchy material and transparent vessels.

The vessels resemble blood vessels, cells, and the protein matrix that bodies generate when bones are being formed.

The use of the term "soft tissue" to describe this find to me is rather misleading, as there was nothing "soft" found until after it was soaked in an acid solution.

From experience I can tell you that a fossilized dinosaur bone resembles a modern bone only in structure. If you've ever had the opportunity to hold one in your hand you would see that they really are "rocks".

Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...softtissue.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

That's our point Shaftsbury. They are "rocks' and her experiment was like soaking a chicken bone in vinegar. No magic potions just simple stuff.

So how is it possible that there is soft tissue, by the way it seems like people are getting caught up in the wording of "soft tissue" I am not saying it was SOFT. I am saying she could see CELLS>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina

Well I've found a couple of the old threads about it...geez, it's the same thread that Ashley Star Child claimed that scientists had bred dogs and cats to make 'drats'...we'll forgo that one and just post the one that Sauruman posted...

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...=36874&st=0

More than a year on, and there's been no great shake up about this...shock!

Anyway, the point is that most of the cell didn't actually survive; only soft tissue. Soft tissue can in fact survive the fossilization process (you'll notice that the folk who made the discovery didn't get all excited that it might cast doubt on the age of dinosaurs). For that matter, the tissue itself wasn't present as such...it had to be chemically extracted; when Silvercouger posted her previous article, she was in fact refering to the same thing as you. She just had a more up to date atricle (yours is over a year and a half old).

In short, no...this doesn't make any difference to the perceived age of dinosaurs.

So why teach it as our best guess? Why do we need to have an answer. Why can't "We don't know" be tolerated.

You'll actually find that science is anything but afraid of saying "we don't know", simply because it refuses to fill in the blanks with a supposition. If anything, the only person currently making an assumption is you....

Do you actually have any knowledge of the methods used to date fossils? Do you know of the processes involved? Do you know how the results are further verified? Do you know what critisisms they have come under over the years, and what evidence they have presented to prove these critisisms incorrect?

Or do you actually no very little about them, and are just raising the cry of "scientists are liars!"?

Understand that this isn't an attack...it's an honest question. But attempting to refute something withabout at least some prior knowledge of it is something I encounter day in and day out frin the anti-evolution camp, and I just want to establish that you aren't one of these people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaftsbury

I just want to add that people should not get hung up on Carbon Dating.

Carbon-14 is NOT used to date dinosaur fossils, because it has a half-life of around 6,000 years.

Scientists use Potassium/Argon dating on older fossils.

Source: http://www.caspercollege.edu/community/cam.../faq/faq24.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QueenOftheCramped
Quote: truethat Oct 22 2006, 10:36 PM

I am an atheist and I don't believe that humans evolved from Apes. That we had a similar ancestor.

Truethat, whether you believe it or not, it is a scientific fact.

"In agreement with the newer information on the social lives and intelligence of chimpanzees and other apes (McGrew et al. 1997), the results of molecular studies of primate phylogeny (Goodman et al. 1998, and in press) challenge the traditional anthropocentric view that humans are very different from all other animals. Rather, the molecular results reveal that genetically we humans are only slightly remodeled apes. We share with our most distant living ape relatives (the gibbons and siamangs) >95% identity in genomic DNA, and with our closest relatives (the chimpanzees and bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees) >98.3% identity in typical noncoding DNA and probably 99.5% identity in the active coding sequences of functional nuclear genes. From: The Genomic Record of Humankind's Evolutionary Roots Morris Goodman The American Journal of Human Genetics, volume 64 (1999), pages 31–39 Full Article

Please see also : Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium; Nature 437, 69-87, September 2005) Full Article

One of the reasons for this is that we can't find one. The idea that we are supposed to have evolved from an ancestor that was able to spawn at least two entirely different creatures and yet we can't find ANY proof of their existance is very strange to me.

Not to me:

"Furthermore, the fossil record is demonstrably incomplete; species appear in the fossil record, then disappear, then reappear later. An exceptional instance is the coelacanth, which last appeared in the fossil record 80 million years ago, yet it is alive today. During the Cretaceous (a critical time in bird evolution), there is a 50 million-year gap in the diplodocoidean record, greater than a 40 million-year gap in the pachycephalosaurian record, greater than a 20 million-year gap in the trodontidiae, and about a 15 million-year gap in the viraptosaurian fossil record (both of these last two orders of dinosaurs are iraptoran coelurosaurian theropods, which figure significantly in the evolution of birds). During the Jurassic, there is a 40 million-year gap in the fossil record of the heterodontosauridae (Sereno 1999). Most organisms do not fossilize, and there is no reason why a representative of some species must be found in the fossil record. As every graduate student in scientific research knows (or eventually learns, perhaps the hard way), arguments based upon negative evidence are very weak scientific arguments, especially in the absence of proper positive controls. Thus, based on the fossil remains of modern species and the known gaps in the current paleontological records of extinct species, the observation of transitional species "out of order" by 40 million years should be fairly common. This degree of "play" in the fossil record is actually rather minor, considering that the fossil record of life spans between 2 to 3.8 billion years and that of multicellular organisms encompasses a total of ~660 million years. An uncertainty of 40 million years is equivalent to about a 1% or 6% relative error, respectively—rather small overall. Source

The evolution of hominids is well documented and seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Go to this link and scroll down to 3. humans-apes

Also the dinosaur bones. Recently they cracked open a few of these dinosaur bones and found soft tissue inside. That to me is proof that they aren't 68 million years old.

Scientists will say they can prove things with carbon dating. But SCIENTISTS are the ones who came up with the numbers for carbon dating.

That is not correct. The "numbers" in carbon dating are determined by nature, by the half-life, or decay of radio-active carbon-isotopes. This link explains how C14 Dating works. And this link explains how Radiometric Dating works. (carbon dating can only be applied to organic matter & is limited to 6000 years)

Seems pretty obvious to me that a dinosaur bone with soft tissue (found in rock btw) is not millions of years old.

As somebody already answered on this thread, the scientists "dissolved & liquified" the crystallised contents of the bones with chemicals. It said nowhere that the tissue was actually soft when found.

On a more general note, I really can't find any "hostility" in the reply-posts you seem to see everywhere. In fact, I find you much more hostile & defensive. After reading quite a few of your posts on the 9/11 threads, I am actually quite disappointed by your attitude. You seem to commit the very fallacies that you accuse CT's of:

Quote Truethat: Oct. 20, 2006 06.47 pm:

I have listened to what people have presented in their theories and was curiously expecting a lot more proof. I have noticed that those presenting the conspiracy theory, hold those who debunk it to a higher standard of proof than they do themselves. For example, they want specifics and motives but offer none to support their own theories. They want logic but skip over logic when presenting their theory.

Fair enough, you say that you are only asking questions and are not proposing new theories; But although admitting that you are not a scientist & have no in-depth knowledge on biology, anthropology, paleontology, genetics, chemistry or geology, you seem to refuse to consider answers of people who have more knowledge on the subject than you or try to inform yourself better before you form an opinion. Shame :hmm:

Edited by QueenOftheCramped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina

*stares blankly at QueenoftheCramped*

.... :mellow:

*turns to Aquatus*

...Is she...related to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

Truethat, whether you believe it or not, it is a scientific fact.

[/b]

Exhibit A. Just because you call it a scientific fact does not make it a fact. Just because 1,000 scientists call it a scientific fact doesn't make it a fact.

Its not a FACT unless you can absolutely PROVE IT. And you can't. This is precisely what I am talking about.

"In agreement with the newer information on the social lives and intelligence of chimpanzees and other apes (McGrew et al. 1997), the results of molecular studies of primate phylogeny (Goodman et al. 1998, and in press) challenge the traditional anthropocentric view that humans are very different from all other animals. Rather, the molecular results reveal that genetically we humans are only slightly remodeled apes. We share with our most distant living ape relatives (the gibbons and siamangs) >95% identity in genomic DNA, and with our closest relatives (the chimpanzees and bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees) >98.3% identity in typical noncoding DNA and probably 99.5% identity in the active coding sequences of functional nuclear genes. From: The Genomic Record of Humankind's Evolutionary Roots Morris Goodman The American Journal of Human Genetics, volume 64 (1999), pages 31–39 Full Article

Please see also : Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome (The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium; Nature 437, 69-87, September 2005) Full Article

Not to me:

"Furthermore, the fossil record is demonstrably incomplete; species appear in the fossil record, then disappear, then reappear later. An exceptional instance is the coelacanth, which last appeared in the fossil record 80 million years ago, yet it is alive today. During the Cretaceous (a critical time in bird evolution), there is a 50 million-year gap in the diplodocoidean record, greater than a 40 million-year gap in the pachycephalosaurian record, greater than a 20 million-year gap in the trodontidiae, and about a 15 million-year gap in the viraptosaurian fossil record (both of these last two orders of dinosaurs are iraptoran coelurosaurian theropods, which figure significantly in the evolution of birds). During the Jurassic, there is a 40 million-year gap in the fossil record of the heterodontosauridae (Sereno 1999). Most organisms do not fossilize, and there is no reason why a representative of some species must be found in the fossil record. As every graduate student in scientific research knows (or eventually learns, perhaps the hard way), arguments based upon negative evidence are very weak scientific arguments, especially in the absence of proper positive controls. Thus, based on the fossil remains of modern species and the known gaps in the current paleontological records of extinct species, the observation of transitional species "out of order" by 40 million years should be fairly common. This degree of "play" in the fossil record is actually rather minor, considering that the fossil record of life spans between 2 to 3.8 billion years and that of multicellular organisms encompasses a total of ~660 million years. An uncertainty of 40 million years is equivalent to about a 1% or 6% relative error, respectively—rather small overall. Source

The evolution of hominids is well documented and seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Go to this link and scroll down to 3. humans-apes

I like how you mix some FACTS that can be proven in with THEORIES THAT CAN NOT> Typical.

That is not correct. The "numbers" in carbon dating are determined by nature, by the half-life, or decay of radio-active carbon-isotopes. This link explains how C14 Dating works. And this link explains how Radiometric Dating works. (carbon dating can only be applied to organic matter & is limited to 6000 years)

Exhibit B. Who came up with the numbers to plug into this equation? WE DID. Is there some great genius of the universe that states that this is correct?

Carbon dating is not used to determin the age of dinosaur bones. Could that be because they can't make it work for dinosaur bones? So therefor since they can't make it work dinosaur bones must be older than it is capable of proving. Couldn't be that there is a flaw in the test. :no:

As somebody already answered on this thread, the scientists "dissolved & liquified" the crystallised contents of the bones with chemicals. It said nowhere that the tissue was actually soft when found.

Nor did I. I didn't think I had to specifically state that it wasn't "Meat" which I did anyway. I also already pointed out that soft tissue doesn't mean "soft" but I guess you missed that while you were scouring the site for other unrelated arguments by me.

On a more general note, I really can't find any "hostility" in the reply-posts you seem to see everywhere. In fact, I find you much more hostile & defensive. After reading quite a few of your posts on the 9/11 threads, I am actually quite disappointed by your attitude. You seem to commit the very fallacies that you accuse CT's of:

I am asking a question. Not stating a fact. I am stating that to me the answers don't add up. And everytime I raise a question about this I am treated with derision and as if I am stupid. If you are interested in a good example just re-read your post.

Fair enough, you say that you are only asking questions and are not proposing new theories; But although admitting that you are not a scientist & have no in-depth knowledge on biology, anthropology, paleontology, genetics, chemistry or geology, you seem to refuse to consider answers of people who have more knowledge on the subject than you or try to inform yourself better before you form an opinion. Shame :hmm:

I haven't got any answers typically. Just lots of looking down your nose.

BTW the scientist in the article DID question the age of the bones. She stated "how can this have lasted 68 million years" and in addition she questioned the way scientists claim that bones fossilize. She's questioning a lot of things.

Funny how this was completely swept under the rug. Haven't heard a thing about it since it first happened? And other museums are refusing to crack open the bones to examine them.

Far from being a CT type thing, this is a simple question that has been met with derision, ignored or hidden.

Now I ask another question. What makes a scientist believe that I should accept what they are saying when it doesn't add up.

I question EVERYONE> Tonite in my class we were discussing how people blame the media for distorting the truth. But the responsibility for finding the truth lies with the individual. It is not the media's job to educate us. I find it interesting that when one questions authority they are treated like they are dangerous or stupid. WHY?

Since I don't watch television myself I have noticed that there is this tendancy to sort everyone into two opposing camps.

The Christians and the Evolutionists

The Patriots and the Bush Haters

And if you are like me, a person who questions everything, you find that people don't know how to deal with you unless they can lump you into a little category which they already are geared up to fight.

People don't know how to have a discussion any more. Only a fight.

I also notice that you completely ignored the point I made about Darwin fighting the SCIENCE COMMUNITY not the religious community while presenting his theory.

Edited by truethat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

Mmnkay then. If you are so horribly against science and scientists in general, and apparently you're not into the whole religious scene...

Instead of furthering showing us that you can't get beyond Darwin's theories...

What do you purpose be tought then instead of all this. I mean, you say you want to leave it up to colleges, however as I said, not all colleges teach sciences. So, instead of having a bunch of ignorant masses out there because you don't think these sciences should be in high school... What do you suggest is tought instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

I also notice that you completely ignored the point I made about Darwin fighting the SCIENCE COMMUNITY not the religious community while presenting his theory.

It was ignored because it is such an over simplification and off topic but as you insist...

The science and religious communities were virtually indistinguishabe in Darwin's time. The literal truth of the Bible was simply not questioned. Darwin was questioning the literal Genisis account and hence was simply ridiculed on religious grounds NOT scientific. Pre-Darwin virtually all Christian scientists were creationalists. The point is that Darwin changed that because (and here is that bit you are struggling with) he presented evidence. That evidence eventuallt convinced most scientist as to the truth of evolution.

All you offer is your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

Mmnkay then. If you are so horribly against science and scientists in general, and apparently you're not into the whole religious scene...

Instead of furthering showing us that you can't get beyond Darwin's theories...

What do you purpose be tought then instead of all this. I mean, you say you want to leave it up to colleges, however as I said, not all colleges teach sciences. So, instead of having a bunch of ignorant masses out there because you don't think these sciences should be in high school... What do you suggest is tought instead?

I think truethat answered that early on. It's basically the same thing most Christians want: STOP TEACHING EVOLUTION LIKE IT'S FACT!!

And please don't tell me it isn't. When I was in High School, we were taught about the THEORY of Evolution, and as much as my extremely liberal Biology teacher wanted to make us believe that Evolution HAD to be true, she still had to tell us it was a theory and it was written like that in the textbooks. I have spoken with several high school students and their parents (we homeschool) and somewhere between 1986 and now, the words THEORY OF somehow fell off the front of the title. Teach it. Tell kids all about what scientists are doing and how they determine things, but teach SCIENCE. Let them know that WE DON'T KNOW, and will NEVER be able to prove this as fact.

And for God's sake tell the idiot science magazine and daily newspapar editors the same thing, because they seem to have forgotten too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverCougar

But it isn't tought as though it was fact. I remember clearly that evolution was tought as theory. Because any idiot and their scientist brother will tell you that it *IS* only theory.

It's people like crationalists, and truethat that keep insisting that it's fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

It was ignored because it is such an over simplification and off topic but as you insist...

The science and religious communities were virtually indistinguishabe in Darwin's time. The literal truth of the Bible was simply not questioned. Darwin was questioning the literal Genisis account and hence was simply ridiculed on religious grounds NOT scientific. Pre-Darwin virtually all Christian scientists were creationalists. The point is that Darwin changed that because (and here is that bit you are struggling with) he presented evidence. That evidence eventuallt convinced most scientist as to the truth of evolution.

All you offer is your opinion.

There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."

(Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)

Wow, it must not take a lot of evidence to convince scientists.

I have some strange looking rocks in my backyard, I should show them to some scientist, I'll probably be able to convince him an ancient civilization built a gigantic pyramid under my house and these are the only remains of that great civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon

But it isn't tought as though it was fact. I remember clearly that evolution was tought as theory. Because any idiot and their scientist brother will tell you that it *IS* only theory.

It's people like crationalists, and truethat that keep insisting that it's fact.

Yes, it is SC, heck some of the kids in UM chat can tell you how they know evolution is fact. Ask them, I have, they do not see it as theory, at best they have been told it's as good as proven, so *wink**wink* go ahead and believe it is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.