Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think it's similar to the scientific method in that you keep asking questions in order to prove, disprove, or show the fallacies of something.
So I'm trying to read a rather large textbook on a 6″ ereader. It ain't gonna happen. I'd be better off with a 15" screen laptop if I want a portable reading device.
If he doesn't come out there with a green suit and face paint on race day, I'll be disappointed. "Hulk mad. Need Gold medal."
Good luck with the book. I have it on my Amazon shopping list and will be picking up a copy soon. Are there any chapters on snow survival? 🙂
OK, I'm trying to not go on any rant here but this is what gets me about evolution in today's schools: They seem to ignore the “nothing can be known for certain” rule. Every reputable peer-reviewed journal, every text book…all of them teach evolution as fact. Yes, they do admit that things are unknown, but their minds are so closed that they won't (can't?) accept any other alternative. And they dismiss relevant questions.It's the same with man-made global warming. Pretty much any scientist who questions it or goes against the current grain of thinking is either ridiculed or accused of being funded by Exxon. And that's not by laymen or comments on newspapers, that's by other scientists in the field. Do a search on Dr. Richard Lindzen. This guy has advanced degrees from RPI and Harvard and is one the top climate scientists at MIT. He's not even anti man-made GW, he's just telling everyone to tone down the alarmism about it. You should see some of the personal attacks he faces from other climate scientists just for saying this.
Here are the examples I found: The Peppered moth changed its coloration to fit the environment in England.The one I remember reading was the Nylon eating bacteria. The bacteria supposedly prove evolution because nylon is a completely synthetic material that has existed for less than 100 years, yet here they found a bacteria that eats it.
Those are more examples of adaptation rather than evolution.As far as not being able to prove evolution or creation, just talk to any evolutionist. According to them, it's been proven. From a scientific method viewpoint, that's just laughable.
http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/New-evidence-suggests-Neanderthals-organized-their-living-spaces.aspxThe findings are based on excavations at Riparo Bombrini , a collapsed rock shelter in northwest Italy where both Neanderthals and, later, early humans lived for thousands of years. This study focused on the Neanderthal levels while future research will examine the more recent modern human levels at the site. The goal is to compare how the two groups organized their space.It all depends on the source used to inform about a fact. The closer, the better.
The findings are based on excavations at Riparo Bombrini , a collapsed rock shelter in northwest Italy where both Neanderthals and, later, early humans lived for thousands of years. This study focused on the Neanderthal levels while future research will examine the more recent modern human levels at the site. The goal is to compare how the two groups organized their space.
Proof? I'm assuming they found 2 sets of bones dated approximately 60-100,000 years apart?
The site comprises three levels assigned to Neanderthals. Scientists found that Neanderthals divided the cave into different areas for different activities. The top level was used as a task site – likely a hunting stand - where they could kill and prepare game. The middle level was a long-term base camp and the bottom level was a shorter term residential base camp.
Proof that Neandertals and not the humans divided the cave?
Aeth, what gets me most is how science students are just expected to take things as fact that are not fact in any scientific sense. A textbook will say something is so many million years old and that's supposed to be taken as fact without question. If the student looks into it further, he may find that this million year old thing is just a speculation, not fact.Until evolution is observable and testable, which it's not, then it should be considered a humanity like philosophy or religion, and not taught as science.
I'm curious to know about what creationists can say about archaeological studies such like this one
Simple answer: skepticism. Personally, I'm not convinced that the dating is accurate and/or correct. It will take a lot to convince me that plate tectonics has no affect on any of the current dating methods used. That the evolutionary theory changes back and forth every 5 or 10 years, and I mean completely changes, makes me, and should make anyone else question the validity of the whole theory.There are 15 (to my knowledge) theories of abiogenisis. Which ones are all the kids using these days?And then we have genetic modeling. RNA was the way to go, now it's not. Then came DNA, but too many things didn't fit the narrative. So now they moved onto mDNA (mitochondrial), and ignore the fact that mDNA dating is highly inaccurate beyond 40,000 years, yet scientists use it as "evidence" to date things beyond 2.5 million years. And in just reading many of the peer-reviewed articles concerning evolution there are WAY too many occurrences of "it is suggested", "we believe", "it may". That's more like religion than science.
