Missing link found by Norwegian scientist

Hespera · May 21, 2009

Honkytnkmn said:
Its not that it can be proven false, but its the fact that it can't be proven true. If it was truly a fact like its put forth, there would be no doubt. We wouldn't have to discuss it any more. Is the earth round? yes fact we can prove it no debate.

Oh my....this is where some background in science would really be helpful!

Science progresses by falsification, not by proving things. If you wait for theories to be proven you will wait forever.

"If it is a fact....there would be no doubt". No.

Think of a courtroom. They try to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, not prove like 2 plus 2 =4.

All existing evidence, great reams of it, points to guilt. Not one piece of data indicates innocence. So...... now what? Wait for proof? How much evidence does it take?

There is not one data point anywhere that would contradict the ToE.
Does that strike you as odd in any way?

I mean, if it isnt true, then wouldnt the abundance of evidence be showing that it isnt true? But, not one single solitary last piece of data ever shows up?

AV1611VET · May 21, 2009

mpok1519 said:
theres probably only about fourty. Quadrillion? Really? I don't even thin theres that many species that hve eve existed on earth, past present and possibly future.

Remember, you've got a long way to go --- from molecule to man --- or amoeba to man --- wherever you prefer to start.

I'd say molecule to man, if you really want to impress us.

But you'll never do that --- because you can't.

You don't have enough computer space to allow for every single model, and you have no idea what to look for anyway --- until AFTER you've found it --- then you retrofit it into your evolutionary paradigms and expect us to believe it's just another part of the puzzle filled in.

mpok1519 · May 21, 2009

So, we should just, give up looking for our origins because it takes too much work? We should just blindly believe that God did it, and poof, here we are, bing bang boom, no real rhyme or reason process or methd, just, bang, we're here? Adam + Eve = origins of our species, and thats it, without trying to challenge this idea?

We know that molecules eventually turned into man. Its not hard to believe, and theres evidence to suggest that thats exactly what happened.

We all know AV is a poe though; he's really an atheist in diguise.

LifeToTheFullest! · May 21, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Way too vague.

What I'm talking about is predicting an animal, from head to toe, then discovering it.

Don't you think it's interesting that when they make a discovery, it's always:

Geologists discover fossils, which they name [insert new name here].

How's come the articles don't read:

Geologists finally found [insert predicted name here].

It's always named AFTER they find it, not BEFORE.

How do you name something before you've found it? ^_^

I think your typing is faster than your reasoning. ^_^

AV1611VET · May 21, 2009

mpok1519 said:
So, we should just, give up looking for our origins because it takes too much work?

Our origins are thoroughly Documented and preserved in a Book that tells us not only Who did it, but when He did it, how He did it, where He did it, why He did it, what order He did it in, and even who the eyewitnesses were.

mpok1519 said:
Adam + Eve = origins of our species, and thats it, without trying to challenge this idea?

You don't understand enough of it to challenge it.

We're not a species --- we're a kind --- humankind.

The only "kind" that has survived since Genesis 1 - (that I know of).

mpok1519 said:
We know that molecules eventually turned into man.

No, molecules were turned into man --- there's a big difference.

And eventually isn't the word for it --- it was done in a day.

mpok1519 said:
Its not hard to believe, and theres evidence to suggest that thats exactly what happened.

It's not hard to believe because you're taking it on faith --- and your evidence is only stuff retro-fitted to look legitimate.

jake4130 · May 21, 2009

Let me put something to rest for you Ectezus. If there is no God, then you are at this moment reading the words of a ghost. I actually died in April of 2004, hanging from a tree by my own belt in my parents back yard.

But I'm not a ghost. I am alive and well. And not by some weird "I was brought back to life" or "the belt broke" scenario, but by a series of events that happened on that day that literally saved my life from my own hand and can not be explained by any other means than a miracle.

In order for those events to fully align the way they did in the precise order they did is simply not possible by chance. You would have better odds of winning the lottery jackpot....in all 50 states at once.

This coming from someone that before that day not only claimed to be atheist, but would tell the street preachers I saw every day "Your God is dead and no one cares" with full conviction and belief in that statement.

LifeToTheFullest! · May 21, 2009

Nah, retrofitting is what creo/idists do. That's why you have AV and dad coming up with ridiculous theories to support mythical nonsense.

Science is what rationalists do.

Funny how Darwin's theory of descent with modification is proven true, every time. No exceptions. Darwin didn't even need the fossil record or molecular biology as proof, it was/is that obvious.

AV1611VET · May 21, 2009

LifeToTheFullest! said:
How do you name something before you've found it?

Well, if evolution is so precise, I'm sure you can show us something before its time.

After all, you have computers to assist you --- don't you?

Truth of the matter is though, any educated gaggle of scientists can retrofit a discovery --- can't he?

Pesto · May 21, 2009

jake4130 said:
Let me put something to rest for you Ectezus. If there is no God...

That's not really at issue here. This is a thread about evolution, which is irrelevant to the existence or non-existence of God.

LifeToTheFullest! · May 21, 2009

jake4130 said:
Let me put something to rest for you Ectezus. If there is no God, then you are at this moment reading the words of a ghost. I actually died in April of 2004, hanging from a tree by my own belt in my parents back yard.

But I'm not a ghost. I am alive and well. And not by some weird "I was brought back to life" or "the belt broke" scenario, but by a series of events that happened on that day that literally saved my life from my own hand and can not be explained by any other means than a miracle.

In order for those events to fully align the way they did in the precise order they did is simply not possible by chance. You would have better odds of winning the lottery jackpot....in all 50 states at once.

This coming from someone that before that day not only claimed to be atheist, but would tell the street preachers I saw every day "Your God is dead and no one cares" with full conviction and belief in that statement.

Maybe you thought you died, but really didn't?

LifeToTheFullest! · May 21, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Well, if evolution is so precise, I'm sure you can show us something before its time.

After all, you have computers to assist you --- don't you?

Truth of the matter is though, any educated gaggle of scientists can retrofit a discovery --- can't he?

Nope.

Honkytnkmn · May 21, 2009

Hespera said:
Science progresses by falsification, not by proving things. If you wait for theories to be proven you will wait forever.

LifeToTheFullest! said:
Funny how Darwin's theory of descent with modification is proven true, every time. No exceptions. Darwin didn't even need the fossil record or molecular biology as proof, it was/is that obvious.

Ok so which is it? Can science prove it or not?

Hespera · May 21, 2009

LifeToTheFullest! said:
Nah, retrofitting is what creo/idists do. That's why you have AV and dad coming up with ridiculous theories to support mythical nonsense.

.

Projecting is another thing the theocreologists and their running dogs do. Its not a bad sign, really, its half way to recognizing their faults. Now if they just use the mirror instead of the pointer, they will be home.

Hespera · May 21, 2009

Honkytnkmn said:
Ok so which is it? Can science prove it or not?

Poor use of words, the "proven true". More like 'every data point confirms".

Pesto · May 21, 2009

Honkytnkmn said:
Ok so which is it? Can science prove it or not?

In the strictest sense, science cannot prove things true. A scientific theory or hypothesis is either supported or falsified by evidence. By this system, proof is relegated to fields like mathematics and philosophy.

However, that's the formal construct around which scientists work. In lay terms I have no objection to saying something is "proven by science", but others will object. Similar to the reaction you've gotten when using the term micro-evolution.

Edit: the lay term "proven by science" can be translated into scientist speech as "strongly supported by a robust set of evidence."

LifeToTheFullest! · May 21, 2009

Hespera said:
Poor use of words, the "proven true". More like 'every data point confirms".

Yep, that's why it's called theory, not hypothesis.

Mercy Medical · May 21, 2009

jake4130 said:
Let me put something to rest for you Ectezus. If there is no God, then you are at this moment reading the words of a ghost. I actually died in April of 2004, hanging from a tree by my own belt in my parents back yard.

But I'm not a ghost. I am alive and well. And not by some weird "I was brought back to life" or "the belt broke" scenario, but by a series of events that happened on that day that literally saved my life from my own hand and can not be explained by any other means than a miracle.

In order for those events to fully align the way they did in the precise order they did is simply not possible by chance. You would have better odds of winning the lottery jackpot....in all 50 states at once.

This coming from someone that before that day not only claimed to be atheist, but would tell the street preachers I saw every day "Your God is dead and no one cares" with full conviction and belief in that statement.

Okay, you speak of these events, but what exactly were they...?

AV1611VET · May 21, 2009

Pesto said:
In the strictest sense, science cannot prove things true. A scientific theory or hypothesis is either supported or falsified by evidence. By this system, proof is relegated to fields like mathematics and philosophy.

So [true] science is either supported hypotheses, insofar as it's not?

There's no such dichotomy as proven/unproven?

Instead, it's supported/unproven?

Sceince is the only religion I know that runs on a network of supported guesswork.

Has there ever been a time in the past, where a gue... er... hypoth... er... theory has been "proven" false, then later shown to be supportable?

LifeToTheFullest! · May 21, 2009

AV1611VET said:
So [true] science is either supported hypotheses, insofar as it's not?

There's no such dichotomy as proven/unproven?

Instead, it's supported/unproven?

Sceince is the only religion I know that runs on a network of supported guesswork.

Has there ever been a time in the past, where a gue... er... hypoth... er... theory has been "proven" false, then later shown to be supportable?

Quit lying AV.

Science is not religion. Does not use guesswork, and yes, creationism has been proven false.

AV1611VET · May 21, 2009

LifeToTheFullest! said:
Does not use guesswork...

An hypothesis is not an "educated guess"?

ETA: Answers.com calls it an "assumption".

Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

Missing link found by Norwegian scientist

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Veteran

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Junior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads