What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
36 Comments
- WriterSD, on 10/31/2009, -0/+47This makes a lot of sense. Really, we know so little about dinosaurs..
Which is why we should start cloning them right away! :-) - Angostura, on 10/31/2009, -0/+32It wasn't an asteroid 65 million years ago. It was a rogue taxonomist!
- ultraJesus, on 11/01/2009, -3/+27Clever girl...
- strangewill, on 11/01/2009, -2/+14No, they were scoffed at because the weaknesses were pointed out as evidence that science was flat out wrong and that creationism is right, not "there are weak points in the theory, but other than those I accept it".
You talk on a scientific level to a scientist about this, you get honest answers about science being an evolving setup, where things are wrong sometimes, we learn, accept, move on. When you talk to them on the level of "My belief with ZERO evidence is more real than your scientific based theory because there are pinholes in your giant wall of evidence" you get scoffed at. - unhg, on 11/01/2009, -5/+17The difference between science and creationism is that science, as shown in the article, actually admits their mistake and take measures to correct it. Creationism, on the other hand, simply admit their flawed dogmatic truth as infallible.
I would rather have infinitely cascading theories that gets closer to the historical truth than a hard-line fiction masquerading as truth. - DaviDTC, on 11/01/2009, -1/+12http://digg.com/general_sciences/A_Third_of_Dinosa ...
- zerodaysoon, on 11/01/2009, -0/+11keep him at zero so he can never see the light of day...or the day of light...i forget which one it is...muuuuahahaha
- prodigitalson, on 11/01/2009, -2/+12Is not so much that we scoff at their criticism of the model, its that they do so with "evidence" contrived to support a different theory that has no concrete evidence to support it.
I mean i wouldnt be scoffing if some 5th dimensional being appeared and communicated we were his pet project, or if a million year old space ship was unearthed that contained a geneteic lab complete with several sequences showing the creation of the human genome. Or if any bits of intermediar evidence of supporting those two things was presented. But a "holy book" and an argument which is essentially "this ***** is too complex to exist on its own!" is not going to sway me against what seems to be a solid model - a model open to revision with new evidence - but a solid model nonetheless. - dijkstra22, on 11/01/2009, -0/+9You're welcome to correct it as long as you have a model that is consistent with empirical evidence as well as one able to make better predictions than current models. As is science.
- BenTheTank, on 11/01/2009, -0/+9Some ***** is going to write "clever girl," and get 100 Diggs; I can sense it.
- ApeInago, on 11/01/2009, -4/+12in other news, new information was found about dinosaurs, and it was discovered there are mistake in their family tree.
the creationists are right!!!!
oh wait, this makes evolutionary predictions about dinosaur linage MORE accurate, not less. whoops. - eak125, on 11/01/2009, -1/+9That sounds dangerous. I believe that we should keep said park away from large population centers like, say, San Diego... I recommend an isolated island in Latin America where it will be easy to keep the animals contained. I am certain Hurricanes won't cause any real problems. We can bus tourist onto the island via helicopters (with huge fanfare) and make money off it that way! There's no way this can go wrong!
(obligitory /s) - ApokalypseNow, on 11/02/2009, -0/+8The position of science changes with the discovery of new evidence because that position is inherently based on the evidence. The position of creationists will not change no matter what evidence is discovered because their position is not based on evidence in any way, shape, or form.
- sivyr, on 11/02/2009, -0/+6"The bottom line is that it seems evolutionists are the only ones allowed to correct their own model...and how dare ANYONE else try to correct it."
I think maybe you haven't noticed a general theme in the many flamewars I've seen you involved in previously:
Scientists who are espousing the current model of evolution as truth will only accept criticisms to their model from people with valid criticisms (read, _specific_ scientific criticisms) that are not based on logical fallacies, contrivances, or religious dogma. Should you have such a criticism, bring it to the right person, and present it well, then you might be taken seriously.
If that means that having the kind of specialized knowledge needed to suggest such criticism makes you part of the evolutionist machine, then I guess we're guilty of only listening to our own kind. However, I think you'll find general agreement from those of us interested in evolutionary biology that listening to criticism from those with no more than folk knowledge in evolution is hardly productive, as they often fail to grasp or are ignorant of the nuances of the model that show why their criticism isn't valid in the first place.
Then when they are not listened to, this whole situation where science is taken to be elitist and conspiring to pull the world over the world's collective eyes gets out of hand, and people like DavidNiven contest virtually everything that science stands for instead of just picking at bite-sized gripes with currently accepted science like the reasonable ones among us. - Alias1431, on 11/01/2009, -0/+5Clever Tank...
- nebloof, on 11/01/2009, -0/+5I absolutely love this article. I always wondered about this kind of thing. How there's so many "different" varieies of a particular dinosaur, then come to find out, some of them are just in different growth stages.
- johnnick, on 11/02/2009, -0/+5Who needs to hear them? Scroll up and you can see a live example in DavidNiven.
- illepic, on 11/01/2009, -2/+7I was 10 years old when I figured this out.
- Khast, on 11/01/2009, -1/+6Why not just clone them and create a theme park in the middle of the ocean so we can observe this for ourselves. That would clear up a lot of confusion about the dinosaurs. /s
- Mnementh2230, on 11/02/2009, -0/+5"The bottom line is that it seems evolutionists are the only ones allowed to correct their own model"
And we are, if you believe in a literal history of the Bible, because anything else is completely disingenuous. - dijkstra22, on 11/01/2009, -1/+5You do realize science is just a string of imperfect models that are slowly becoming more and more correct as our techniques and research become more nuanced, right? And you also realize that it works very well, right? Like, you know, how Quantum Mechanics replaced Classical Mechanics in certain regimes and we now you can post comments on Digg at incredible speeds because we understand very well how transistors work.
- ileftfark, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4Goodwin's Law: As the topic of varying species of dinosaurs continues, the likelihood of said species to actually be an existing known species approaches 1.
- Sixagon, on 11/01/2009, -0/+4Damn it, even Nedry knew better than to mess with the raptor fences.
- Yage2006, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3I can hear ignorant creationists who don't have a clue about the scientific method saying look science was wrong again.
- fungie5, on 11/01/2009, -0/+3Sounds like a plan! I know this really talented computer geek....a fella by the name of Dennis Nedry...who would be just perfect to engineer the software programming for such huge theme park venture! /s
- johnnick, on 11/02/2009, -0/+2You left out the repeat loop :-)
- VisceralNeeds, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2Paleontology is science. In science we don't just make claims and not back them with evidence.
Here's how it works:
Observation-> Hypothesis-> Experiment-> Theory (if experiment is successful). - DaviDTC, on 11/01/2009, -1/+2wow Jesus, you are an *****.
- DaviDTC, on 11/01/2009, -0/+1BenTheTank "Some ***** is going to write "clever girl," and get 100 Diggs; I can sense it."
ultraJesus "Clever girl..." - deathstryk, on 11/01/2009, -2/+2its light of the day.
- deathstryk, on 11/01/2009, -14/+14I am a fossil.
Digg me up. - inactive, on 11/01/2009, -2/+1Let's not bring religion into this, mmkay?
- zaferk, on 11/01/2009, -8/+2This isnt a pissing contest.
- DavidNiven, on 11/01/2009, -19/+10Very interesting article. So, the evolutionary tree model just had some branches seriously rearranged. You know, every time a creationist (or anyone really) questions evolution or the tree model, they are told that the experts have spoken and to simply accept it.
But, now we see an example where these experts might have been wrong big time. Can you see why people are hesitant to merely accept what they are told given that so much science has been proven wrong over the years?
I wonder how much else of the current evolutionary tree model is inaccurate due to poor assumptions, junk science-fueled conclusions, and outright circular logic.
I'm not saying that evolution does not occur. I think that it does. But, revelations about such evolutionary models makes one question how much of everything we see today can be traced back to evolution versus some other source.
Clearly, the evolutionary model is merely a work in progress with significant error and not quite set in stone via scientific evidence the way some evolutionists want us to believe. - DavidNiven, on 11/01/2009, -12/+2Imperfect models becoming correct over time? Yes, I know this. No problem. I do the same thing as an engineer.
However...this is NOT what is presented frequently by evolutionists who are being questioned and having their theories critiqued. Creationists such as I are told to simply defer to whatever the evolutionists say and to stop thinking that we are anywhere near intelligent enough to understand the science much less point out its deficiencies.
The bottom line is that it seems evolutionists are the only ones allowed to correct their own model...and how dare ANYONE else try to correct it. - DavidNiven, on 11/01/2009, -14/+2Well, the point is that there are so many times that evolutionists scoffed at a creationist's critique of the evolutionary tree model even when discrepancies or weaknesses of that model was pointed out. Seems like the creationists had their act together all along and were on to something.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is