How can a cheap American buy a HOUSE in the 1st. World ?

[Boston]

Ya but creation isn't science, its dogma. Science doesn't reach a conclusion and then try and fit the evidence to it. People are going to believe whatever they want, but science is a specifically disciplined way of looking at various forms of data. Deviate from that discipline and its no longer science.

I'm not so sure the dinosaur tracks were ever shown to actually be in the same strata as the human ones and I seem to remember reading somewhere that the tracks were stolen anyway, so an exact determination isn't possible. Idea being it was a fake to begin with. The age of dinosaur bones vs the age of human bones precludes there having laid down tracks in the same fossil layer. It just doesn't happen that way. So unless there are multiple examples each being proven by multiple methodologies then I'd say the science just isn't there to support the idea of human and dinosaur tracks existing in the same age rock.

[Yobarnacle]

"Science doesn't reach a conclusion and then try and fit the evidence to it. "
Oh Yeah?
"People are going to believe whatever they want,"
Yep!
"but science is a specifically disciplined way of looking at various forms of data. Deviate from that discipline and its no longer science. "
Ageed!
So how many scientists are "good" scientists? I mean truly objective. Open minded. I suspect not many. It's sorta contrary to human nature.
There are inept in every field. including medical doctors. Which is why it's wise to seek 2nd and 3rd medical opinions.

uh, we went off on a tangent. Care to start a thread on theories? i'll participate if we avoid global warming and 911. Been there, done that.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

that theory was proposed by a guy named Hapgood if I remember and it wasn't in relation with anything biblical. He was attempting to explain why we have fossil ferns at fruit trees at the poles and why there are berms of animal carcasses so large that we can mine ivory out of them. Its an interesting theory but doesn't have a lot of support.

cheers
B

There is also magnetic evidence in the rocks of polar shift.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis

"Research shows that during the last 200 million years a total true polar wander of some 30° has occurred, but that no super-rapid shifts in the Earth's pole were found during this period.[2] A characteristic rate of true polar wander is 1° per million years or less."

Tropical vegetation fossils at the upper latitudes is explainable by continental drift.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYbTN...eature=related

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

Ya but creation isn't science, its dogma. Science doesn't reach a conclusion and then try and fit the evidence to it. People are going to believe whatever they want, but science is a specifically disciplined way of looking at various forms of data. Deviate from that discipline and its no longer science.

I'm not so sure the dinosaur tracks were ever shown to actually be in the same strata as the human ones and I seem to remember reading somewhere that the tracks were stolen anyway, so an exact determination isn't possible. Idea being it was a fake to begin with. The age of dinosaur bones vs the age of human bones precludes there having laid down tracks in the same fossil layer. It just doesn't happen that way. So unless there are multiple examples each being proven by multiple methodologies then I'd say the science just isn't there to support the idea of human and dinosaur tracks existing in the same age rock.

Evolution is a great theory but it is still a theory. What is not known still outweighs what is known. I have already stated that I believe God set evolution in motion at the time of His Creation. Changing BC to BCE doesn't erase Christ's existence. I just call it Before Christ Emerged. CE I call Christian Era.

[Frosty]

Oh for Petes sake evolution is a well accepted fact, well in the educated world it is.

The big eyes on butterflies wings were not made by god.

Oh !!!!!

Evolution can be seen working yearly on the big beaked and small beaked Finch.

You got google aint you. I aint telling yer boy you gotta do some book learnin.

[Yobarnacle]

Evolution as you describe it does indeed exist. Variation within a species. Most folks when they discuss evolution, intend that species develope into other species. There is absolutely no evidence that that has ever occurred. It's just a theory, and more and more discounted by geneticists. It's the barely educated that hang on.

[Frosty]

No!! well you are just a monkey and before that a lizard --no offence mind you, I was'nt suggesting the hair on your face was monkey like but actually it is.

Doe;s a frog start off as a frog, or a butterfly!

[Yobarnacle]

Occasionally some woman asks why I wear a beard. Because I can!
Envious?

[viking north]

Dinasours and humans did exist at the same time but not in present form. As a matter of fact both still co exist but not in past form. They both evolved thru enviromentally influenced genetic change. Those that made the successful morph survived. Those that didn't we pick and analize their bones. This is evolution . Was it inspired by a God yes indeed, in fact two Gods-- Father and Mother Nature. If it makes you feel better to have higher Spirit Gods above them then by all means do so but here in the real tangable world the laws of the Gods of Nature rule. The same allows the earth to supply materials so "The average cheap North American (Canadians and Mexicans included) can buy a white house in the 1st. world (first world ?? full circle we're back to dinosour times again and on topic)

[Frosty]

Dinosaurs never left --they are birds today.

Facial hair, fear of the dark, colonies, monogamy, anger , hunt, are all results from our animal past.

[Yobarnacle]

Well as to that Frosty, there are similarities between dinosaurs and birds, ie: hollow bones and egg laying. It's an entertaining theory that one evolved into the other but you state it as if it were fact, and have no evidence.
"Facial hair, fear of the dark, colonies, monogamy, anger , hunt, are all results from our animal past" disagree
Theyre from our recent past. and savage maybe, and technically humans are part of the animal kingdom, but we weren't animals as you intended it.
As to my fore fathers, the amerindians were beardless. My viking forefathers indeed wore beards. Which were more savage? Who can say now. But imagining the card. Madison Square Garden. "Hagar the Horrible" the viking berserker faced off against the bloodthirsty heathen savage, "Seven Dogs Rutting" in a fight to the finish. Battle of the century! Monogamy? Neither ancient nor prevalent today. Fear of the dark?
Evil men shun the light.

Viking North, I basically agree with you. Mother nature is God too. Actually He is sexless, like all spirits. Mother Russia, The german Faderland, American Uncle Sam. What's the "sex" of the Canadian national spirit? I know maple leaf is the symbol, and England the "mother" country.

[viking north]

Exactly- so are gators-crocks- sharkes --that funny named fish --old guys like you and I . Whats this monogamy--have to disagree there --primates are not naturally monogamus --this is a lifestyle choice, fear induced by some religions or cast iron frying pans

[CatBuilder]

Originally Posted by Yobarnacle

So how many scientists are "good" scientists? I mean truly objective. Open minded. I suspect not many.

Yo, nearly every scientist is a "good" scientist. I had the pleasure of working with probably 200 or so over the course of a previous career at NASA. To a man (or woman), scientists operate along these lines:

1) Seek out the truth by developing a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis to see if it is correct or not. If the hypothesis was not correct (according to data obtained from emotionless experimenting, not feelings), the hypothesis is immediately scrapped. Trained scientists (I'm one of them) are seekers of truth. It's beaten into us from very early on in formal education. It's for this reason, a scientist will never come up with an idea, then try to find ways to support it. His peers will oust him. It is dead against the culture in the scientific community.

2) Sometimes, there is no hypothesis or a weak hypothesis. We simple don't know what the heck is going on. In that case, we would try to collect data, essentially grasping at straws and trying to make sense of the data to form a new hypothesis for #1 above.

Just like on the bridge or in the cockpit of a boat, there is a very definite culture. A protocol. A way of doing things. The difference is scientists are extremely, *extremely* precise in everything they do. It's the nature of the game.

Scientists don't get paid much. There are no "greedy" or "corrupt" scientists that last more than a couple months in the field. The scientific community is a very harsh place to work, actually. Your peers are evaluating you 24/7 and trying to poke holes in your work and more annoyingly, your intelligence. It's a constant battle of trying to prove who is smarter.

They will try out out do you and one up you. They will go through anything you develop or any hypothesis you come up with and try to disprove it by default.

Your work is not accepted as proven until you pass a peer review and everyone decides that what you claim is, without any doubt, true. The peers demand all of your data and everything involved in the experiments and will try to recreate anything they can to disprove you.

For those reasons, there are no corrupt scientists, like politicians or businessmen. You simply can't get away with it. You would be booted from the scientific community.

Lastly, there is one small "perversion" to science and it's this: Someone has to pay your salary as a scientist. Therefor, you are stuck working on projects that may not interest you. For instance, all of my life I had wanted to work on an "anti gravity drive", whatever, exactly, that might be.

After obtaining my education and starting at NASA, I found that I'd really never be able to work on that obscure area of Physics because nobody was willing to fund it. Case closed. Instead, I worked on building small spacecraft that measured the magnetic fields and plasma density between the Earth and Sun. It was great work, but not my ideal. That's the only place a scientist ever compromises. Ever.

Here is a quote from a favorite television show of mine that very accurately describes the life of a scientist. It is from a bio of a "professor" character that is a professional scientist in the show:

"After 14 years of graduate school, Farnsworth settled into the glamorous life of a scientist. Fast cars, trendy night spots, beautiful women - the professor designed them all, working out of his tiny one room apartment. "

Pretty well sums up the life of a scientist.

[Yobarnacle]

"After 14 years of graduate school, Farnsworth settled into the glamorous life of a scientist. Fast cars, trendy night spots, beautiful women - the professor designed them all, working out of his tiny one room apartment. "
That's funny and sad.

I'm not surprised you worked with top notch people at NASA. Even if the pay wasn't great, it must of seemed an honor to be selected. Looks good on the resume. Bet theres thousands of scientists give there eye teeth for that opportunity. I salute you!

[viking north]

Yo-- My God Canada has no sex --but our national animal is the BEAVER