thestar.com — The hominid cranium ? found in two pieces and believed to be between 500,000 and 250,000 years old ? "comes from a very significant period and is very close to the appearance of the anatomically modern human."
Mar 26, 2006 View in Crawl 4
fantasticflanMar 26, 2006
"Evolution has never been shown to be correct or disproved for that matter either"only half right, can you guess which half?
dewdrinker19Mar 26, 2006
The great flood. It is inevitable that it did happen. Tons of cultures have a great flood story with one familty on a boat with a few of each kind of animal. There are clams on top of everest. These are fossilized clams found in the closed position. Clams do not die in the closed position unless killed semi quickly, liked being burried in mud during a huge flood. That flood.
dewdrinker19Mar 27, 2006
God stopped that stuff after Christ came. Christ came, died on the cross, paid for all of humanity's sin. That is when God stopped performing "visual things" such as "fire raining from the sky" and other things that you are referring to.I know you will all prolly give this a thumbs down. But come on, he asked a question and I answered, shouldn't get thumbs down because you don't agree, just a direct question for an opinion and an opinion shared.
fathedMar 27, 2006
That's a new testament answer.
starmanjonesMar 27, 2006
>Both sides can present proof. This proof that they present is for them to decide whether>or not it is valid. Mostno... both sides do not present proof. the science side has all the available proofs on its side as all its concepts are derived from those proofs and the religious side has none of the available proofs and is built entirely on distortions of laymans interpretations of science or stories from a book of questionable origin. placating them by allowing that these two positions are equal is a fallacy and only encourages them to disrupt society further.
diggnateMar 28, 2006
"Creationism and ID are not science because they do not follow the basic tenants of science, and as soon as everybody comes to terms with that the mocking and jeering will stop."Just out of curiosity, what are the "basic tenants of science" that you are speaking of that ID does not follow? not a trick question, just curiosity.
diggnateMar 29, 2006
"off the top of my head the biggies are that it doesn%u2019t adhere to scientific method. "basically, the scientific method goes something like this:1. Observation2. Hypothesis (based on observation)3. Predictions (based on hypothesis)4. Testing & Repeating (of the hypothesis to see if predictions were right)5. Modify the hypothesis (based on results of T & R)6. Repeat7. ConclusionTo a certain extent, you are right. there are some who first form the hypothesis, then observe. In this respect, it does not conform to the sequence of the SM. But, remember, we are not talking about "biblicists", but those who first came up with the idea of ID. The two are very different. the ID guys made observations first (from an naturalist standpoint mind you), and their observations made them believe that the complexity of life, et al, required a designer (this was a hypothesis, not a theory, which is within their rights as following the SM). Predictions and Testing are hard based on our not being there, but testing (in it's simplest possible form) was possible insomuch as we could compare things that were designed to things that we believed were designed (life), and compare the complexity. This leads to a probable (but admittedly weak) conclusion. It is weak, because it is a simple prediction, which leads to a simple test, neither of which can really explain the "origin" because the elements of which the hypothesis of origin can be recreated, limiting the repeatability of the experiment.Now, onto evolution. Darwin observed the same earth and life that the ID guys did. he, from that, formulated a hypothesis, that complex life came from less complex life, all the way back to the origin. his theory did not really address the origins, btw. so our observations (based on the same observable data) were relatively similar, but the two part at the hypothesis. Here's where it's interesting. based on the hypothesis, life came from less complex life, and so on, he can make predictions (ie life will continue to grow more complex over time), but cannot test that because of time restraints. not to mention the fact that he also, like the ID guys, was not there.So I would conclude that BOTH theories break down at the "T & R" point of the SM. What you are asserting is that one HYPOTHESIS is superior to the other, based on the merits of the hypothesis itself, not it's ability to be held up by the remainder of the scientific method. "and it starts with a conclusion and searches for proofs to support it. "already covered that. biblicism may, but ID does not. that's simply untrue."there is a difference between a scientist presenting a hypothesis and testing it... and areligious person applying their mythologies to reality and trying to find something tosupport the myth."by what, the nature of his being a "scientist"? Like I said, the ID guys (originally) were mostly naturalists. exactly what "mythology" did they apply? Both start with observation, and based on that observation, they formulate a hypothesis. no hypothesis (educated guess based on observation) is superior than any other, as long as it's based on observation. the test is not in the reasonableness of the hypothesis, but in it's ability to stand up to the rest of the SM."it also doesn%u2019t count if you think evolution is a myth because you are basing thatconclusion on faith not fact. evolution is entirely drawn from the facts."I agree. I don't try to claim evo is not based on facts...it is based on facts. the problem that ID guys and most modern skeptics, is that evolution has LOTS of unexplainable holes. evolution websites like to ignore these holes and pretend they are not there, but they are there. that's not to say that ID doesn't have holes."you all hate to hear that because it has implications on reliability of your thoughprocesses. i guess thats your burden."ID guys don't fear facts. ID is just as adaptable as evolution. the problem inlies when a *conclusion* (evolution or ID) is held on to with tight grip, regardless of data.The problem really lies in your attitude towards the possibility of ID being correct. you believe that it's foolish to conclude that there is a "big guy in the sky". That is, of course, your right, and I respect that. but on the other hand, many people think that you are foolish for not thinking that there is a higher, more intelligent being. the discrepancy is in opinion, and opinions are not really science, are they?