Dino Bird Link Confirmed

Join 500,000+ Artists

Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!

Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 277
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV, USA
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    183
    Thanked 73 Times in 27 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Dino Bird Link Confirmed

    Not sure if anyone posted this yet, but I thought this was pretty interesting! T-Rex Protein Confirms Bird-Dino Link

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,675 Times in 5,021 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Interesting? Very. Surprising, at this point? Not at all. Although I'm dying to hear Larry Martin or Alan Feduccia's spin on this.


    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV, USA
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    183
    Thanked 73 Times in 27 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I agree, totally not surprising at all. The Mastodon/Elephant link seemed pretty obvious as well!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    57
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    yeah, i just wish the scientists would make up their mind. i'v been hearing about the dino/bird link forever. so i'm glad they are finally deciding to stick to a theory.

    The tiger lies low, not from fear, but for aim.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #5
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,675 Times in 5,021 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarashi View Post
    yeah, i just wish the scientists would make up their mind. i'v been hearing about the dino/bird link forever. so i'm glad they are finally deciding to stick to a theory.
    That's not how science works, kiddo.


    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    57
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    yeah, i know. it can be annoying sometimes. math is straightfoward, but science isn't always so straight forward. sigh.

    The tiger lies low, not from fear, but for aim.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    1,215
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 165 Times in 66 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarashi View Post
    yeah, i know. it can be annoying sometimes. math is straightfoward, but science isn't always so straight forward. sigh.
    What would you rather have them do?

    The fact that the study of science is an iterative process, corrective, and sometimes wrong is one of the beauties of it. It allows progress. I'm currently pretty glad they didn't just stick to the aether.


    Also, a small pet peeve in science discussions; the way you used 'theory' is not they way the word 'theory' is used in science.
    Your 'theory' mean hypothesis, while in science the word 'theory' is more seen as as close to fact as science is able to get. Such as the theory of gravity. Or... the theory of evolution.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wassermelone For This Useful Post:


  10. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    223
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Evolution doesn't really qualify as a theory in my book though, and never has. It is a hypothesis in the midst of testing (as far in as that can be done... not very much at all really) and is constantly being reiterated, following the scientific method.

    Regarding this specific dino-bird link. All species of life share an astounding amount of DNA and strands of protein. To say that this is confirmation of any link that one species eventually formed modern day birds is absurd. Add that to the fact that National Geographic is guilty of perpetrating almost all of the mainstream dinosaur-to-bird-link hoaxes really causes me to doubt any such "provable and testable" connection. Also the fact that the artists employed by National Geographic have been found to have created several "jackalopian" reconstructions as artistic renditions of skeletons that aren't even 1/10 complete and all they were given was pictures and casts of those skeletal remains and the line that "we need you to come up with what this creature looked like as a 'link' (there's the line there) between such and such a species based off this skeleton you see here." Sounds alot like the creature construction process often used at this very site.

    Yes, I am a creationist, and I realize there are many problems with current creation outlooks. However, there are just as many, if not more, problems with current evolution outlooks. It's just that creation has one very big thing that people don't like and don't care for and that's God. And no matter what happens regarding "proofs" or "evidences" either way people are going to believe what they believe based on their life experiences.

    All creationism is to me, is a hypothesis that IF God really did cause these miraculous events to happen then this would be the outcome of biological history. In my outlook, Creationism says: nobody has the answers, but it is possible that this may have occured and there is room for it in logical thinking so let's use the scientific method (even though "God" is not testable, the rest is) to uncover the truth.

    What I think is most interesting is that soft proteins were found at all in a fossil that is puportedly ~65 million years old, and the fact that soft proteins are being found more and more so in fossils and that evolutionists constantly claimed (although now recanted) that soft tissues could never survive in fossils.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joshua Fountain For This Useful Post:


  12. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    2,963
    Thanks
    1,345
    Thanked 1,308 Times in 307 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Fountain View Post
    Regarding this specific dino-bird link. All species of life share an astounding amount of DNA and strands of protein. To say that this is confirmation of any link that one species eventually formed modern day birds is absurd. Add that to the fact that National Geographic is guilty of perpetrating almost all of the mainstream dinosaur-to-bird-link hoaxes really causes me to doubt any such "provable and testable" connection.
    Other biased and subjectively reached conclusions aside; How long did you think that claim could stand without providing any sort of backing?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    1,128
    Thanked 1,402 Times in 557 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I don't believe in dinosaurs. i think they are our modern myth.

    "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
    --- Frank Herbert, Dune - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear

    Check out my Sketchbook! Critique and Criticism welcomed.

    or my Deviantart!

    · or check out my: Blog
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    223
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by N D Hill View Post
    Other biased and subjectively reached conclusions aside; How long did you think that claim could stand without providing any sort of backing?
    Sheesh sorry, I meant perPETUATING not perPETRATING. That was a massive brain fart on my part and totally changed the meaning. Go go checking your posts after writing them >_>.

    How I know this is NG is always backpedaling and recanting these findings. Such as: this. But of course, not before they put a massive "MISSING LINK" headline on their magazines so they sell better.

    And I am just as biased and subjective as almost all of my science teachers have been. So go figure. Sorry for having my own mind and looking for answers on my own.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    54
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The truth is that we will never know for sure about the past. Science is basically just guessing untill proven correct or wrong. The majore error in what science is today is our media. They report theory as a truth when it is not. Take global warming for example there is no evidence that CO2 is causing the earth to warm up its just a theory mind you by the same person that in the 70's said that CO2 was causing the earth to cool and that we should be in a frozen waiste land now.

    Now is CO2 causing the earth to warm I don't know. But I can not buy it when the so called scientest and non scientest that get hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to say it is argue that the sun has no affect on the tempature of earth.

    Oh and all you Al Gore worshippers can flame away at me all you want. Maybe you should not listen to a politician for you scientific theories and count them as facts. Try researching it your self and that meens both sides of the story and not just one. Then come to your conclusion.

    As for the dinosaurs go I can say this. They where big amazing and no longer here. Chickens or not I'm glad I dont have to hide from a TRex on my way to work everyday.

    "The only thing we have to do is die. Everything else is a choice."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,350
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 120 Times in 71 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Just because there's evolution does not mean there is no God.

    Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, developed the Big Bang Theory and Charles Darwin was a devote religious follower....so what's all this black and white bullshit thinking anyway?

    Hey, they found dinosaur bones. They use to exist...deal with it. The Earth is older then 10,000 years old.

    Last edited by NoSeRider; April 30th, 2008 at 09:22 PM. Reason: Doh! It's Charles....
    My New Neglected Sketchbook
    You Ain't no Nina!.....

    "Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    "My mind is made up. Don't confuse it with facts." -- Terence McKenna
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks
    669
    Thanked 537 Times in 295 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Various Persons
    I'll just go ahead and post my grave misunderstandings about science.
    I'd write a big ol' long post, but why reinvent the wheel?

    If you aren't familiar with Sirlin yet, then you're in luck because you're about to read an article he penned about a little something called "Inductive Reasoning" (Be sure to check out is other stuff too, he's a smart guy).

    In short:

    There are three types of thinking:

    Deductive Reasoning (e.g. Math), which is where you take certain axioms and build logical conclusions from them.

    Inductive Reasoning (e.g. Science), which is where you observe experiments and verifiable evidence to build logical conclusions.

    Alice in Wonderland Thinking (e.g. what the Average Joe uses), which is when up can be down, red can be blue, and Jesus could ride Dinosaurs.

    I'll allow you to sort out on your own which category your thinking fits into.

    And, because I'm tired of seeing this, a quick note about theories.

    A scientific theory isn't what Joe-Schmoe thinks of when he hears the word theory. What Joe-Schmoe is thinking of is a hypothesis.

    A theory is the scientific equivalent of a fact or "Truth" (with a capital T). Why is it called a "theory" instead of a "fact" (or truth, or gospel, et cetera)? Because with inductive reasoning, nothing is above criticism and examination, nothing, not even previously proven facts. There's always the chance that new evidence can crop up to disprove what was once previously proven.

    Terming facts as "theories" is a nod to the above.

    One might note my explanation of scientific theory isn't all that different from Wassermelone's. I explained again because even though Wassermelone already did, it seemed to bear repeating.

    -My work can be found at my local directory thread.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Anid Maro For This Useful Post:


  19. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,888
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,067 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    My kevferrara sense is tingling.

    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


  21. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    39.7,-86.1
    Posts
    1,218
    Thanks
    451
    Thanked 408 Times in 256 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Anid Maro
    A theory is the scientific equivalent of a fact or "Truth" (with a capital T). Why is it called a "theory" instead of a "fact" (or truth, or gospel, et cetera)? Because with inductive reasoning, nothing is above criticism and examination, nothing, not even previously proven facts. There's always the chance that new evidence can crop up to disprove what was once previously proven.
    This is from a dictionary....

    Hypothesis, theory, and law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. Hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation (a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs). Theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth (the theory of evolution). Law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions (the law of gravitation).
    Evolution (defined as macroevolution or evolution of lower organism to a higher, more complex organism) is a theory, meaning that there is some possible evidence, but the evidence itself is not a direct proof. It is not a scientific fact or truth because there is no evidence (or sum of evidences) that can directly prove it; the evidence only give it plausibility. The scientific community in general accepts evolution as a fact and truth, and proclaim it as a gospel, but yet, evolution is still a theory. Why? Because the only other explanation is creation, which is thought to be "unscientific" because science can't explain anything beyond what is tangible.

    I don't believe in evolution, but I do believe in devolution.

    EDIT: I do believe that "microevolution" do occur, which gives diversity within species; natural selection and mutations are fact. However, "macroevolution" (i.e. development of completely new species or new organs, from simple to complex, etc.) is what I have a problem with. This is my opinion.

    Last edited by VulgarDragon; May 3rd, 2008 at 08:53 AM. Reason: To clarify things.
    -Mike Cross


    Sculpting Thread|My Website| DeviantArt |My Blog
    -Also on FB and Twitter
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,873
    Thanks
    555
    Thanked 1,766 Times in 648 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Well, I mean, they've proved evolution in small scale.

    Fruit flies. They have such short lifespans (about 3 days max) that scientists have been able to study hundreds of generations, and we're pretty goddamn sure that they evolve and change away from each other, as we've seen it happen. (there are plenty of articles on this, as well as mice.) We don't count it as evidence for the full theory because let's face it, one example does not prove a rule, but, we know it happens.

    In comparison, humans have only really been around for 30 thousand years, and 10 thousand as 'modern man', i suppose. Now, we can assume that there are about 3 generation average per century, which means about thirty in a millennia, which means that 'modern' man has only been around for 300 generations. That means that only three hundred people link you to the beginning of human life as we know it. Not a lot of time to grow in that spance, huh?

    I think people have trouble with evolution because *really* testing it would require us to live for thousands of years, and no one seems to want to compare human evolution to that of fruit flies...


    As for the proteins, it makes total sense that they can now do something that they couldn't before. If you can learn how to draw better, why couldn't they learn to extract bone matter better? We certainly don't know everything there is to know about biology, so assuming that the present is a hoax because the past doesn't justify it is like trying to say that because for thousands of years we assumed the earth went around the sun, the opposite simply couldn't be true.

    Science is based on the idea that someone, somewhere, eventually will prove you wrong and come up with something better. Otherwise it's religion.

    edit: Oh, and if National Geographic *is* doing that, then that's retarded and they should know better. But in the end they are part of the media, not scientists, and you shouldn't really use them as proof against the science...

    Last edited by daestwen; April 30th, 2008 at 12:45 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,851
    Thanks
    1,128
    Thanked 1,402 Times in 557 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NoSeRider View Post
    Just because there's evolution does not mean there is no God.

    Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, developed the Big Bang Theory and George Darwin was a devote religious follower....so what's all this black and white bullshit thinking anyway?

    Hey, they found dinosaur bones. They use to exist...deal with it. The Earth is older then 10,000 years old.
    To kind of add to what were getting at, this video which throws a monkeywrench in the whole "we evolved from bacteria" theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

    "I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."
    --- Frank Herbert, Dune - Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear

    Check out my Sketchbook! Critique and Criticism welcomed.

    or my Deviantart!

    · or check out my: Blog
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks
    669
    Thanked 537 Times in 295 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MCross View Post
    This is from a dictionary....
    I suppose that's what I get for giving a brief layman's description of what a theory means. A meaningless dictionary quote.

    Here's one more pass using quotes from "Scientific Laws, Hypothesis, and Theories". Emphasis placed in bold.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Wilson
    Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

    Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

    Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Wilson
    Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Wilson
    Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

    In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

    In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

    The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
    Mr. Wilson then proceeds to use an analogy to ensure there is no more confusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Wilson
    An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

    A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

    An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

    A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

    Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
    Furthermore, one may notice there is little talk nowadays of "Laws". This stems from the idea that all known Laws and Theories can be disproven with future evidence. Typically "Theory" is substituted in for "Law" in modern times, for example the "Theory of Gravity" as opposed to the "Law of Gravity".

    Katharine M. J. Osborne goes to some lengths to explain this phenomenon. Of particular note is this quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Katharine M. J. Osborne
    So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.
    In summary:

    1. A scientific Law is a simple, verifiable, and repeatable occurrence.

    2. A scientific Theory is like a Law, but more complex. It is however no less verifiable, repeatable, or true.

    3. A Hypothesis is like an educated guess. Many people mistake theory to mean hypothesis, but it does not.

    4. The modern scientific community got scared that "Law" was too strong of a word, so now "Theory" has come to encompass the meanings of both "Theory" and "Law".

    5. Dictionaries are generally a very poor source of information. Don't trust them to explain the nuances between Law and Theory. In fact, don't trust them to explain anything well.

    Using the above knowledge, I'm going to fix the following quote for you. Corrections are bolded.

    Quote Originally Posted by MCross View Post
    Evolution (defined as macroevolution or evolution of lower organism to a higher, more complex organism) is a theory, meaning that there is tons of evidence, the evidence itself is certainly direct proof. It is undoubtedly a scientific fact or truth because there is plenty of evidence (or sum of evidences) that can directly prove it; the evidence only give it plausibility. The scientific community in general accepts evolution as a scientific theory which is as close as one can get to "fact", "truth", or "gospel". Why? Because the only other explanation is creation, which is little more than a metaphysical hypothesis that is untestable due to it's liturgical origins and is thus counted right out.
    Hypotheses are not chosen to be theories lightly. That is why evolution, having been rigorously tested, is a theory... and why creationism is not.

    For all I care you can put all of the faith you want into the Bible and chose to believe creationism, but please don't parade it around like it is some sort of alternative scientific theory.

    Religion has to do with faith, not logic or evidence. Religion and Science aren't even playing the same game, let alone sharing a ballpark like some would have one believe. Many would do well to remember that.

    On a final note, Jerry Wilson would like to inform you all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Wilson
    Copyright © 2007 by Jerry Wilson. Get permission to reprint.
    And since I didn't get permission, I'm a filthy copyright infringer. Oh well.

    -My work can be found at my local directory thread.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Anid Maro For This Useful Post:


  26. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    223
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    And what you are missing is that Evolution is just as metaphysical as creationism is. It's entirety is built upon ideas that are not provable by experimentation nor observation but are hoped by the scientific community to "someday be thus". There are certain "evidences" that lend support to natural selection and speciation from a general kind. There are not any evidences, not ONE that any kind has changed to another or that life has spontaneously generated on its own, that are subject to experimentation and observation.

    The only reason it is so widespread in academic circles and thus granted the title of general scientific theory is because of the falling out of faith in the Western World and many people have an agenda to find a substitute for religion to answer the "big questions" of life. I can go ahead and post myriad problems that would demote evolution as a theory back to a hypothesis ready to be tested with experimentation and observation if you like. It won't change the scientific community's "consensus" which seems to matter more than actual science these days.

    Creationism = metaphysical not empirical science based upon the belief in the creator of the Christian and Judaic texts. They are saying "if these miracles happened then these evidences would be left behind" which can and is being scientifically tested. The miracles and the creator are not, which leaves it in the realm of metaphysical science.

    Evolution = metaphysical not empirical science based upon the wishes, hopes, and desires of the atheistic community (which is a majority in the scientific world) shoved upon the rest. Any science that comes out that might lend credence to Creationism is not published in notable media or is outright hidden because of that fact. In fact many scientists have lost their positions and credibility for simply publishing material that went against the status quo even though it was impeccibally worked through the scientific method. Why? Because it would provide fodder for the creationist camp.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Austin TX
    Posts
    10,749
    Thanks
    2,078
    Thanked 11,134 Times in 2,681 Posts
    Follows
    2
    Following
    1
    I love creationist stories. Such fantasies give me happy thoughts of land of the lost and jurassic park. Especially the ones where dinosaurs lived along side humans at the time of noah magically fitting every known species on a big hand made boat. Seems pretty obvious why he didnt let the dinos on board. the buggers would have devoured everything and well...if he let the friendly brontosaurus family on, nothing else would have fit. Noah faced some hard hard decisions. Poor dinos were left to swim for it.

    Oh..btw...there are dinosaur poop fossil lumps on sale right now on the internet. I was thinking about getting some.



    LEVEL UP! - ConceptArt.Org online workshops are on sale- Join now and get 25% off!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV, USA
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    183
    Thanked 73 Times in 27 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This gets me rolling with laughter... (and slightly nauseated!) I have no idea how anyone can take that guy seriously.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks
    669
    Thanked 537 Times in 295 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Fountain View Post
    And what you are missing is that Evolution is just as metaphysical as creationism is. It's entirety is built upon ideas that are not provable by experimentation nor observation but are hoped by the scientific community to "someday be thus".
    Metaphysical? Evolution? Are we talking about the same thing?

    There's nothing "meta" about the observable, I'm sure high school biology covered Gregor Mendel for example.

    Perhaps I should have been explaining the meaning of evolution as opposed to the word "theory". Wikipedia is about as good of a source as a dictionary, but it does serve as a decent primer.

    And if you feel like posting a...

    ...myriad problems that would demote evolution as a theory back to a hypothesis...
    ... then go right on ahead. My lady is out of town and there's nothing urgent in the morning, all I've to do tonight is eventually drink myself to sleep.

    Not that there's any point in you doing so, ArtZealot already blew me out of the water with his irrefutable logic.

    Edit: Nevermind, no need to reply. Just clicked on Jska's link, and apparently Dr. Dino made a movie. My entire being crumbles before the might of this truth.

    -My work can be found at my local directory thread.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    887
    Thanks
    957
    Thanked 492 Times in 226 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Evolution = metaphysical not empirical science based upon the wishes, hopes, and desires of the atheistic community (which is a majority in the scientific world) shoved upon the rest. Any science that comes out that might lend credence to Creationism is not published in notable media or is outright hidden because of that fact. In fact many scientists have lost their positions and credibility for simply publishing material that went against the status quo even though it was impeccibally worked through the scientific method. Why? Because it would provide fodder for the creationist camp....
    Equivocation like that will get you into trouble with many reasonable minded people. So will your use of the term metaphysics.
    If you want to talk metaphysics its better to start with someone like Parmenides. Aristotle took his cues from Parmenides (at least as far as the logic goes) and much of modern science is still operating under some of the core Aristotelian injunctions to explore and catalogue the physical universe, so it will at least get you closer to the game.

    Beyond his original contributions to the field of epistemology, Parmenides is the first Western philosopher to raise the basic metaphysical question ‘What must be true about being?’, and the first to provide a deductively valid argument in support of his answer. First, he lays down two basic assumptions, for which he provides no argument:

    1) Either Being is or Being is not.
    2) It is not the case that Being can be generated from non-Being.

    The first of these is the Law of the Excluded Middle, one of the basic laws of classical logic. The second is the Principle of Sufficient Reason, widely regarded as the most fundamental metaphysical law. From these two premises he concludes that:

    3) Being is.

    He then adds a third premise, the Principle of Non-contradiction, another of the basic laws of classical logic (also accepted as axiomatic):

    4) It is not the case that Being is and Being is not.

    From which, in combination with 3, he derives a number of interesting conclusions about Being

    5) Being is ungenerated.
    6) Being is imperishable.
    7) Being is indivisible.
    8) Being is whole and continuous.
    9) Being is unchanging.
    10) Being is complete and full of being.

    Parmenides also made some fundamental assumptions about thought and language:

    1) It is impossible to think about what is not. (frag. 6, 1)
    2) It is impossible to talk about what is not. (frag. 6, 1)

    All of which taken together lead to a severe rationalism according to which thought and language alone provide knowledge of Being. Parmenides’ ontology (where by ‘ontology’ we mean the theory of being) is austere -but, if austere, it is also in its own way beautiful. He is the most radical monist in the Western tradition, insisting that there is one and only one substance and that substance is timeless, ungenerated, imperishable, whole, incapable of change, and devoid of any differentiating characterstics.

    After Parmenides, every Western philosopher has had to explain the nature of the Kosmos, and change within the Kosmos, while respecting Parmenides’ claims that the fundamental substance of the Kosmos is one, ungenerated, imperishable, whole, and incapable of change. Although some, like Melissus, simply adopt and develop Parmenides’ views, most reject his severe monism, preferring instead to explain how it is possible for the Kosmos to involve many different kinds of things and properties and to undergo change. After all, they seem to have thought, isn’t it the world of our experience that we hope to explain? Any philosopher who assumes that there is more than one kind of ultimate substance is called a ‘pluralist’, since they assume there is a plurality of substances. Anaxagoras is among the more interesting pluralists, since he assumes that the Kosmos is composed of an indefinite (or infinite) number of substances. This is as far from Parmenides’ monism as you can get.

    Or you might prefer hanging out with Heraclitus. He's always a good time too...
    Still no dinosaurs though

    Last edited by Jasonwclark; May 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Jasonwclark For This Useful Post:


  32. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,350
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 120 Times in 71 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

    He failed to mention that the 'Peanut Butter' was hermetically sealed by a machine made by man and purchased before the expiration date.

    Purchase the peanut butter after the expiration date, like 2 to 5 years, and you'll see lots of shit in that jar.

    Creationist metaphors usually suck......Actually, my metaphor sounds better.

    Made then created.

    My New Neglected Sketchbook
    You Ain't no Nina!.....

    "Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    "My mind is made up. Don't confuse it with facts." -- Terence McKenna
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks
    669
    Thanked 537 Times in 295 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NoSeRider View Post
    Purchase the peanut butter after the expiration date, like 2 to 5 years, and you'll see lots of shit in that jar.
    My fiancee's sister was just telling me yesterday about her expired PB&J sammich.

    Of course, I hadn't realized that peanut butter in fact expired... well ever... but she assured me that oh yes, it does, and it's less than pleasant.

    Edit: I realized "experiences with expired peanut butter" sounded somewhat suggestive... I changed it to a more appropriate phrase.

    -My work can be found at my local directory thread.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    223
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 28 Times in 12 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Joshua, just out of curiosity, where exactly do you get your news and information that has led you to believe that Evolution is just as (un)scientific as Creationism? Maybe more to the point, where do you get scientific news or education at all when a fundamental tenet of your belief system is that the earth is 6000 years old.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    2,963
    Thanks
    1,345
    Thanked 1,308 Times in 307 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Manley View Post
    I love creationist stories. Such fantasies give me happy thoughts of land of the lost and jurassic park. Especially the ones where dinosaurs lived along side humans at the time of noah magically fitting every known species on a big hand made boat. Seems pretty obvious why he didnt let the dinos on board. the buggers would have devoured everything and well...if he let the friendly brontosaurus family on, nothing else would have fit. Noah faced some hard hard decisions. Poor dinos were left to swim for it.

    Oh..btw...there are dinosaur poop fossil lumps on sale right now on the internet. I was thinking about getting some.

    Jason, I've got exciting news for you...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  36. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    1,122
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 183 Times in 154 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This thread has shocked me. Around here evolution is seen as a pretty solid theory, by pretty much everyone, even my grandparents could tell me about it. To think that there is a large group of people who believe the contrary, well, I just didn't realize.

    Maybe it's some misunderstandings of the theory, I mean it covers all bases and works pretty well.

    Back to the original port, like others have said interesting but unsurprising.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  37. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,350
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 120 Times in 71 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    What I fail to understand is, why do people feel evolution is repulsive?

    For all you know, maybe evolution is creationism and that was the mechanism that God intended to develop us?

    Hey, supposedly we were created from clay and a spar rib...sounds like evolution to me.

    Remember the old Mac saying, think different.....even though I hate those computers.

    I don't know why people think you can't believe in faith and science?:
    http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

    Last edited by NoSeRider; April 30th, 2008 at 11:19 AM.
    My New Neglected Sketchbook
    You Ain't no Nina!.....

    "Too often we... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    "My mind is made up. Don't confuse it with facts." -- Terence McKenna
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside
Register

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
The Art Department
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook