Rejecting evolution with science...

[Humberto]

I think evolution is correct but I've often wondered why dinosaurs haven't re-evolved in the tens of millions of years since their extinction.

 

[Lupus]

I think evolution is correct but I've often wondered why dinosaurs haven't re-evolved in the tens of millions of years since their extinction.

They have, scientists now believe birds are descendants of the mighty dinos think on that while eating kfc next time.

 

[murraybiscuit]

They have, scientists now believe birds are descendants of the mighty dinos think on that while eating kfc next time.

some extant species have preserved their morphology for a lot longer than most.
the nautilus, coelacanth, horshoe crab and crocodilians come to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil

expecting a t-rex to re-emerge today would be highly unprobable, as environmental factors have changed substantially.
an interesting question is how/why the largest dinosaurs were significantly larger than our current largest mammalian species.

 

[Techne]

The links don't say much apart from the use of the term Dark Ages. Call it what you will. Very little world changing innovations came out of that long period compared to before and after. That is the point.

Actual history suggest otherwise:
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2009/10/gods-philosophers-how-medieval-world.html
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/280537-Science-in-the-Middle-Ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_the_Middle_Ages

 

[Ekstasis]

They have, scientists now believe birds are descendants of the mighty dinos think on that while eating kfc next time.

Yeah, scientists also recently studied the comparisons between the "lip-smacking" sounds of the nonhuman primate, the Gelada monkey in Ethiopia, with human speech.
"This new evidence lends support to the idea that lip-smacking, a behavior that many primates show during amiable interactions, could have been an evolutionary step toward human speech
. I mean how the &%$@ do they make that assertion? Daydreaming scientists. Honestly, one can make any assumption in this ToE it seems.

 

[HapticSimian]

Yeah, scientists also recently studied the comparisons between the "lip-smacking" sounds of the nonhuman primate, the Gelada monkey in Ethiopia, with human speech.
"This new evidence lends support to the idea that lip-smacking, a behavior that many primates show during amiable interactions, could have been an evolutionary step toward human speech
. I mean how the &%$@ do they make that assertion? Daydreaming scientists. Honestly, one can make any assumption in this ToE it seems.

Ekstasis, sincere question: Have you any idea what went wrong in your life that robbed you of the ability to understand that there are degrees of certainty? Yes, one can make any assumption one chooses to, but the value of that assumption is determined by the volume of evidence found to corroborate it. This is true of any opinion held or statement made, regardless of the topic under consideration. It is where evolutionary theory triumphs and ID falls flat.

Why do you find this so difficult to grasp?

 

[porchrat]

Yeah, scientists also recently studied the comparisons between the "lip-smacking" sounds of the nonhuman primate, the Gelada monkey in Ethiopia, with human speech.
"This new evidence lends support to the idea that lip-smacking, a behavior that many primates show during amiable interactions, could have been an evolutionary step toward human speech
. I mean how the &%$@ do they make that assertion? Daydreaming scientists. Honestly, one can make any assumption in this ToE it seems.

Did you bother to actually read the article itself?

I ask because if you aren't prepared to actually read and comprehend the research then you aren't really in a position to mock it. Well, I suppose you can mock it, but you will most likely be regarded as an idiot when you mock something from a position of ignorance.

 

[porchrat]

I think evolution is correct but I've often wondered why dinosaurs haven't re-evolved in the tens of millions of years since their extinction.

Why would they?

The environment can only filter the mutations expressed. There is no rule that says the exact mutations required to bring about dinosaurs again needs to happen.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Ekstasis, sincere question: Have you any idea what went wrong in your life that robbed you of the ability to understand that there are degrees of certainty? Yes, one can make any assumption one chooses to, but the value of that assumption is determined by the volume of evidence found to corroborate it. This is true of any opinion held or statement made, regardless of the topic under consideration. It is where evolutionary theory triumphs and ID falls flat.

Why do you find this so difficult to grasp?

God didn't confirm it in the bible, so therefore it is false.

 

[HapticSimian]

God didn't confirm it in the bible, so therefore it is false.

I just, honestly, can't tell whether the apparent propensity for misunderstanding is inadvertent or not. It's as if any report mentioning 'evolution' is somehow an indication of the state of evolutionary theory at large; all the more so if such a report seems superficially implausible or dubious. Just because some researcher made an off-the-cuff connection between lip-smacking chimps and humans developing speech - even if that were an accurate description of said researcher's actions - it does not follow that evolutionary theory in its entirety is built on spurious connections. Hence degrees of certainty... which some are seemingly unable to grasp.

*edit*

What you say definitely has the ring of truth, and I half remember myself saying something along those lines somewhere on these forums in the past. Because some collection of goat herders' tales is regarded as perpetually inerrant, it follows that anything not matching that standard stands to be rejected. It's fascinating that a human mind can subsist on such fantastically stupid mental processes, and it does at least serve to explain such steadfast wilful ignorance, if not make it any more palatable.

 

[Techne]

I just, honestly, can't tell whether the apparent propensity for misunderstanding is inadvertent or not. It's as if any report mentioning 'evolution' is somehow an indication of the state of evolutionary theory at large; all the more so if such a report seems superficially implausible or dubious. Just because some researcher made an off-the-cuff connection between lip-smacking chimps and humans developing speech - even if that were an accurate description of said researcher's actions - it does not follow that evolutionary theory in its entirety is built on spurious connections. Hence degrees of certainty... which some are seemingly unable to grasp.

I think part of the problem is the dishonest claims by a small group of people (often in a position of some sort of authority) that evolution is incompatible with creation, the Bible, the soul, original sin etc. I.e. they abuse science. Some people take these erroneous claims to heart and then kick against the idea of evolution as if it somehow negates their particular world view. They then abuse science (e.g. ID, YEC) in a similar fashion as those whom made these dishonest claims. Then you sadly end up in this situation:

 

[DJ...]

Oh right. The fact that creotards reject all evidence for evolution is not their fault, but that of evolution proponents. Riiiiight...

 

[copacetic]

let's just be clear about the fact that those 'abusing science' in order to make evolution and theism incompatible are for the most part literal creationists of some sort...

 

[Unhappy1]

I think part of the problem is the dishonest claims by a small group of people (often in a position of some sort of authority) that evolution is incompatible with creation, the Bible, the soul, original sin etc. I.e. they abuse science. Some people take these erroneous claims to heart and then kick against the idea of evolution as if it somehow negates their particular world view. They then abuse science (e.g. ID, YEC) in a similar fashion as those whom made these dishonest claims. Then you sadly end up in this situation:

Yeah i only see this happening on the side of the creationists, its the religious people (often in a position of some sort of authority) making the claims that religion and evolution cant go hand in hand.

 

[Techne]

Oh right. The fact that creotards reject all evidence for evolution is not their fault, but that of evolution proponents. Riiiiight...

Who said it is not their fault? "part of the problem".... Read please.

 

[HapticSimian]

I think part of the problem is the dishonest claims by a small group of people (often in a position of some sort of authority) that evolution is incompatible with creation, the Bible, the soul, original sin etc. I.e. they abuse science. Some people take these erroneous claims to heart and then kick against the idea of evolution as if it somehow negates their particular world view. They then abuse science (e.g. ID, YEC) in a similar fashion as those whom made these dishonest claims. Then you sadly end up in this situation:
/snip

I haven't agreed with you in a while...

There are, in my opinion, two further facets to this illustrated by your comic but not mentioned above:

1. Those who view the bible as wholly inerrant and as an accurate depiction of a world with a history spanning 10,000 years or less are necessarily and rightfully - and inescapably - threatened by contemporary knowledge. I'll grant they do make a disproportionate amount of noise, but I do think it is high time that they are shown the intolerance they so richly deserve. Not before a reasonable attempt to educate has been made, of course.
2. I also see others who act directly opposite to what you state above, wanting to turn every. single. thing. into some sign or fingerprint of a creator when they very well aren't. I say this not in reference to the metaphysical [-]depths you've plumbed[/-] heights you've reached of course, but in reference to those who want to turn every pattern and every constant into a sign of creation.

Just as evolutionary study does not provide, in and of itself, any evidence against souls, the bible, creation and whatever else religiously inclined, it doesn't provide any evidence for such phenomena either. I'm not convinced that is necessarily true of all empirical study, but that's a different discussion...

*edit*

Rereading, I see you do touch on point 2...

 

[Techne]

let's just be clear about the fact that those 'abusing science' in order to make evolution and theism incompatible are for the most part literal creationists of some sort...

Yeah i only see this happening on the side of the creationists, its the religious people (often in a position of some sort of authority) making the claims that religion and evolution cant go hand in hand.

I see this happening on both sides and quite often too. In fact, people get labeled (derogatorily) as "accommodationists" from a small group of very vocal people if you want to argue that science (including evolutionary science) and religion are compatible.

 

[DJ...]

Who said it is not their fault? "part of the problem".... Read please.

I admittedly didn't take that one at face value...

 

[copacetic]

I see this happening on both sides and quite often too. In fact, people get labeled (derogatorily) as "accommodationists" from a small group of very vocal people if you want to argue that science (including evolutionary science) and religion are compatible.

Not in my experience, personally. I think that a big point of misunderstanding is when someone might say that evolution explains the diversity of life without a need for a creator. This is often taken to mean 'your god does not exist, nah nah na nah na'

Most people I've ever encountered who have at least a vague grasp (like myself) on the basics of science and some knowledge of religion, understand that there is no way you can summarily dismiss a religion simply because of the fact of evolution (aside, of course, from religious beliefs that completely miss the reality boat by making claims such as the universe is a couple thousand years old, etc).

On the other hand, just about any person I've met who claims a major incompatibility between religion and evolution has been a believer driven by religious belief (which is why, I think, there is this notion that 'evolutionists' view evolution as a religion, as the only framework these people have to work with is their own very broken one).

*edit*

This all said, I don't believe in the veracity of any religion, and say as much fairly often, but to connect this view to evolution makes very little sense.

 

[Techne]

Not in my experience, personally. I think that a big point of misunderstanding is when someone might say that evolution explains the diversity of life without a need for a creator. This is often taken to mean 'your god does not exist, nah nah na nah na'

Most people I've ever encountered who have at least a vague grasp (like myself) on the basics of science and some knowledge of religion, understand that there is no way you can summarily dismiss a religion simply because of the fact of evolution (aside, of course, from religious beliefs that completely miss the reality boat by making claims such as the universe is a couple thousand years old, etc).

On the other hand, just about any person I've met who claims a major incompatibility between religion and evolution has been a believer driven by religious belief (which is why, I think, there is this notion that 'evolutionists' view evolution as a religion, as the only framework these people have to work with is their own very broken one).

*edit*

This all said, I don't believe in the veracity of any religion, and say as much fairly often, but to connect this view to evolution makes very little sense.

Read up on people who label others as "accomodationists" and see who they are .