Is this our planet?

squod

indough wrote: »

for example if i come home and things are missing from my house i could consider various explanations, but something like 'my house has been burgled' is always going to be more realistic a scenario than 'aliens abducted my furniture' (i know its a ridiculous example before someone says it but thats the point)

I'd go along with that, don't get me wrong. I would say this though, how many of these same 'scientists' also study the different possibilities of our origins. Not many I'd say. Consensus doesn't give you facts, collusion doesn't give you truth either.

indough

probably because not all possibilities are worthy of the same level of research

to follow the example i gave above do you think it would be ok for me to demand that the police also investigate the possibility of aliens having stolen my furniture, as well as it just having been burgled, despite the fact that there was evidence to support a burglary but no evidence to support the aliens theory?

King Mob

squod wrote: »

Images.

Two birds, that look similar and are completely unrelated.

Yes but you see they're both vertebrates. And they share similar morphological and genetic features.

Look how different these birds look:

Yet they are all related.

squod wrote: »

The links you posted are filled with words like may, likely and possibly. Fair enough, there maybe a 0% chance you willl ever understand the terms I'm using .

So people keep saying that scientists think know everything, but then say they are just assuming stuff because of the language used.

They use those words because they are honest.
They are admitting they could be wrong about these ideas, however based on the evidence they have it's the best theory they have and barring new evidence they'll stick with it.
I wonder how many conspiracy theorists do the same?

For common ancestry there is a **** load of evidence, you're just not bothering to look at it.
Not only that but you're completely ignorant of how science works.

So how about you describe the scientific method?
Show us that you're not arguing from ignorance.

squod wrote: »

But they are facts, you've said so yourself. Some scientists are assuming that a couple of dead animals are related to us. But so far they are just assumptions, not fact.

No, wrong again.
It's a fact that we share common morphological and genetic traits with other great apes in the world.
It's a fact that all great apes share traits with earlier and extinct species. And these species share traits with even earlier species. And so on.

So the theory of evolution states that this relatedness is due to the fact that over time species change and spilt into new species due to mutations selected by natural pressures.
Both mutations and natural pressures are easy to see anywhere in nature.

squod wrote: »

And for the record I haven't dismissed science, many scientists will tell you what I'm telling you.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/09/2001083.htm?section=world

He's no where near saying any of the silliness your saying.

He's clearly saying that evolution isn't a ladder, always leading to something better or a certain goal.
It's not a case of "bacteria is less than a fish is less than a lizard is less than a bird is less than a mammal is less than a man" or anything like that.

In fact he's talking about how guys like you don't know how evolution works.

Here's a video that explains exactly what you don't understand much better than I ever could:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/u/35/5MXTBGcyNuc

And out of interest what do you think is a better theory than common ancestry?

squod

indough wrote: »

probably because not all possibilities are worthy of the same level of research

to follow the example i gave above do you think it would be ok for me to demand that the police also investigate the possibility of aliens having stolen my furniture, as well as it just having been burgled, despite the fact that there was evidence to support a burglary but no evidence to support the aliens theory?

That's a point many people are making here. Like Torakx's videos posted earlier. Curators of Egyptian museums showing off chisels and mallets. When there's evidence of complex routing machines and lathes being used on some structures and objects.

I don't believe much of what's been said here from either side, because I choose to believe something different. Many scientists are also choosing to believe in one possibility or another also.

.

indough

squod wrote: »

That's a point many people are making here. Like Torakx's videos posted earlier. Curators of Egyptian museums showing off chisels and mallets. When there's evidence of complex routing machines and lathes being used on some structures and objects.

I don't believe much of what's been said here from either side, because I choose to believe something different. Many scientists are also choosing to believe in one possibility or another also.

.

i understand what youre saying, anything is possible and nothing is definite, but thats the whole reason why youre supposed to base your beliefs on probability rather than just randomly believeing what sounds interesting to you, i mean its the rational/logical system of belief but everyone is of course entitled to believe whatever they want

squod

King Mob wrote: »

Yes but you see they're both vertebrates. And they share similar morphological and genetic features.

Look how different these birds look:

Yet they are all related.

So people keep saying that scientists think know everything, but then say they are just assuming stuff because of the language used.

They use those words because they are honest.
They are admitting they could be wrong about these ideas, however based on the evidence they have it's the best theory they have and barring new evidence they'll stick with it.
I wonder how many conspiracy theorists do the same?

For common ancestry there is a **** load of evidence, you're just not bothering to look at it.
Not only that but you're completely ignorant of how science works.

So how about you describe the scientific method?
Show us that you're not arguing from ignorance.

No, wrong again.
It's a fact that we share common morphological and genetic traits with other great apes in the world.
It's a fact that all great apes share traits with earlier and extinct species. And these species share traits with even earlier species. And so on.

So the theory of evolution states that this relatedness is due to the fact that over time species change and spilt into new species due to mutations selected by natural pressures.
Both mutations and natural pressures are easy to see anywhere in nature.

He's no where near saying any of the silliness your saying.

He's clearly saying that evolution isn't a ladder, always leading to something better or a certain goal.
It's not a case of "bacteria is less than a fish is less than a lizard is less than a bird is less than a mammal is less than a man" or anything like that.

In fact he's talking about how guys like you don't know how evolution works.

Here's a video that explains exactly what you don't understand much better than I ever could:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/u/35/5MXTBGcyNuc

And out of interest what do you think is a better theory than common ancestry?

This is just more of it, seriously KingMob make a bet for youself. Try find the odds on the big bang, followed by planetary creation, the environment for life to start, the process of DNA to form by itself, life to be created and evolution to take place. Factor in a multitude of variables and then come back to me with a figure.

A trillion billion to one perhaps? More maybe. There nice odds alright. Good luck with proving all that as well.

.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

I don't believe much of what's been said here from either side, because I choose to believe something different. Many scientists are also choosing to believe in one possibility or another also.

.

Scientist aren't choosing to believe anything, they are working with what the current evidence shows. The evidence shows beyond doubt that we share common ancestry with every other animal on the planet.
Why would the scientists choose to believe in common ancestry exactly?

And why do you choose what you believe?
I know it ain't based on evidence, and it certainly ain't based on an understanding of evolution or science.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

This is just more of it, seriously KingMob make a bet for youself. Try find the odds on the big bang, followed by planetary creation, the environment for life to start, the process of DNA to form by itself, life to be created and evolution to take place. Factor in a multitude of variables and then come back to me with a figure.

A trillion billion to one perhaps? More maybe. There nice odds alright. Good luck with proving all that as well.

Again you're showing complete ignorance of science and the theories you're discussing.

So explain to us how you think science works.
Cause all the evidence so far shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

In fact, it seem you've just bought into the bull**** arguments of the creationist uncritically.

ANd you really should watch that video, you might actually learn something.

squod

King Mob wrote: »

ANd you really should watch that video, you might actually learn something.

I watched the video, pacey as it was. KingMob, I only want to learn about stuff that's true. Again what you're showing me is more assumption, based on stuff that some people choose to believe.

Because you choose to believe this stuff ( far fetched and improbable as it seems) doesn't make it fact.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

I watched the video, pacey as it was. KingMob, I only want to learn about stuff that's true. Again what you're showing me is more assumption, based on stuff that some people choose to believe.

Because you choose to believe this stuff ( far fetched and improbable as it seems) doesn't make it fact.

Squod, explain how science works.
There's no point arguing with you if you don't know how it works.

squod

King Mob wrote: »

Squod, explain how science works.
There's no point arguing with you if you don't know how it works.

King Mob there's probably no point in us talking full stop. Your beliefs are as distant from mine as yours are from other posters' here. As I've said in terms of probability there's no arguing with any of you. Science hasn't shortened the odds one bit, nor has it produced facts so far.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

King Mob there's probably no point in us talking full stop. Your beliefs are as distant from mine as yours are from other posters' here. As I've said in terms of probability there's no arguing with any of you.

I'm not asking you for anything hard.
I'm asking you how you think science works.

Everything you've posted leads me to the conclusion that you don't know how it works.
You are working off your own wrong assumptions.

squod wrote: »

Science hasn't shortened the odds one bit, nor has it produced facts so far.

Really?
Things don't fall down at the same rate?
I better tell Galileo.

So do you know how science works or are you going off your own baseless assumptions?

squod

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not asking you for anything hard.
I'm asking you how you think science works.

Everything you've posted leads me to the conclusion that you don't know how it works.
You are working off your own wrong assumptions.


Really?
Things don't fall down at the same rate?
I better tell Galileo.

So do you know how science works or are you going off your own baseless assumptions?

Assumptions, assumptions. Can you not see that's all that you've got here. If dressing this stuff up as 'fact' makes you feel better than fine.

You're arguing with me about assumptions that you choose to believe. Believe what you want, I'm not trying to convince you to stop believing what you want to believe in. Bear in mind that it's you that's choosing to believe these assumptions over something else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis

These two animals are extinct because something else made cheeseburgrers out of them. Science would tell me they'd just evolve into something less delicious. I could assume that they'd become human to overcome their deliciousness.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

Assumptions, assumptions. Can you not see that's all that you've got here. If dressing this stuff up as 'fact' makes you feel better than fine.

You're arguing with me about assumptions that you choose to believe. Believe what you want, I'm not trying to convince you to stop believing what you want to believe in. Bear in mind that it's you that's choosing to believe these assumptions over something else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis

These two animals are extinct because something else made cheeseburgrers out of them. Science would tell me they'd just evolve into something less delicious. I could assume that they'd become human to overcome their deliciousness.

So then, no you can't explain science works?
You're just arguing from you personal ignorance.

squod

King Mob wrote: »

So then, no you can't explain science works?
You're just arguing from you personal ignorance.

No KingMob, that discription fits better with you.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

No KingMob, that discription fits better with you.

So then explain how science works.
All we've heard from you is "science just makes assumptions."

Are you going to back this statement up?
Can you back this statement up?

Or are you just making assumptions yourself?

squod

King Mob wrote: »

So then explain how science works.
All we've heard from you is "science just makes assumptions."

Are you going to back this statement up?
Can you back this statement up?

Or are you just making assumptions yourself?

Quote me where I said that.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

Quote me where I said that.

squod wrote: »

I have to say that this is just assumption, truely many 'scientists' believe these assumptions. These beliefs are just assumptions all the same.

So why is it so hard for you to describe how science works.
You seem to be fairly insistent about it, but seem to be very reluctant to back any of it up.

squod

King Mob wrote: »

So why is it so hard for you to describe how science works.
You seem to be fairly insistent about it, but seem to be very reluctant to back any of it up.

And for you, making assumptions and calling them fact. What does that tell me? If you'd like to know more about fact and assumption there's a dictionary. You'll find they have different explanations.

There's no fun in this. Obviously you're feeling below par today. I bid you farewell.

humanji

Guys, relax! Take a deep breath and read over what you type before posting.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

And for you, making assumptions and calling them fact. What does that tell me? If you'd like to know more about fact and assumption there's a dictionary. You'll find they have different explanations.

There's no fun in this. Obviously you're feeling below par today. I bid you farewell.

So then you're not going to explain what you think science is and how it works?

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

So then you're not going to explain what you think science is and how it works?

From what i am gathering from your posts , science is the observation of effect and ignoring the cause of effect , in other words if someone lights a fire , you observe the fire while insisting that the person who lit the fire does not exist .

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

From what i am gathering from your posts , science is the observation of effect and ignoring the cause of effect , in other words if someone lights a fire , you observe the fire while insisting that the person who lit the fire does not exist .

Not even close.

espinolman

King Mob wrote: »

Not even close.

No , i think it is you King Mob that don't fully understand what science is .

The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work

I am have been reading your posts for a while now and you seem to have a problem with the mehtodology in the above quote .

quote from :

http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4cfOg6i1LefkACbRLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByNGxmazk4BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11ovd895s/EXP=1261386784/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

No , i think it is you King Mob that don't fully understand what science is .

I am have been reading your posts for a while now and you seem to have a problem with the mehtodology in the above quote .

quote from :

http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4cfOg6i1LefkACbRLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByNGxmazk4BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2lyZAR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11ovd895s/EXP=1261386784/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

You seem to think hypothesis = make **** up.
You seem to have problems with these bits:

scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations,

The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions

You can't have a hypothesis with out evidence of a phenomenon.
Evidence is sorely lacking on this forum.

The is plenty of evidence in support of common ancestry.
Not "assumptions".

digme

King Mob wrote: »

:
You can't have a hypothesis with out evidence of a phenomenon.
Evidence is sorely lacking on this forum.

Having an hypothesis and then proving it later on with evidence?
Has anyone ever had a moment of enlightenment you receive, you know absolutely in your heart that your conclusions are right, even though you don't have the scientific proof.

King Mob

digme wrote: »

Having an hypothesis and then proving it later on with evidence?
Has anyone ever had a moment of enlightenment you receive, you know absolutely in your heart that your conclusions are right, even though you don't have the scientific proof.

How can you know it's true if you can't independently verify it?

squod

King Mob wrote: »

How can you know it's true if you can't independently verify it?

Black pot. :rolleyes:

King Mob

squod wrote: »

Black pot. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, can you point out a claim I've made that isn't independently verified?

And why are you still refusing to explain how you think science works?

squod

King Mob wrote: »

I'm sorry, can you point out a claim I've made that isn't independently verified?

I'm speachless. Look over yesterdays posts for yourself again.

King Mob wrote: »

And why are you still refusing to explain how you think science works?

Google it for yourself, anything I've tried to teach you so far has just gone over your head. Why do I bother! :rolleyes:

King Mob

squod wrote: »

I'm speachless. Look over yesterdays posts for yourself again.

Nope, not seeing any. Maybe you should point it out.

squod wrote: »

Google it for yourself, anything I've tried to teach you so far has just gone over your head. Why do I bother! :rolleyes:

You personal opinion in on google?

I am quite familiar with how science works and your insistence "that it's all a bunch of assumptions" is at odds with the dictionary definition.
So how do you think science works?

What assumptions are being made in the theory of human common ancestry?

bonkey

We seem to have gone from something not-really-related to Conspiracy Theories to some sort of discussion which wouldn't be out of place on the Creationism thred over on the Christianity forum.

Either which way....there's nothing remotely conspiratorial being discussed here...and you guys are just bickering at this point.


Locked