Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Polonius wrote:The problem GG, is that you dismissed this new evidence without any possible reason to. What you're saying isn't "Based on the available evidence, macro-evolution doesn't hold up as a viable theory." You're saying "Because this is evidence that supports macro evolution, it obviously must not be scientific."
I can't believe I missed this. I'm predicting that this evidence much like the Lucy stuff will turn out to be based on the same set of false assumptions that the lucy stuff is. Your taking it from the angle that "it this is evidence that supports macro evolution, it obviously must be scientific"
How is that not an entrenched ideolog that you accuse me of being.
Pretty hypocritical to me.
GG
I don't believe I ever made an assertions about the evidence one way or the other. I'm highly skeptical about missing link stuff, for a variety of reasons. There is more reason to lie in hominid research due to the prestige, and more examples of frauds through out history. I'm comfy waiting back and letting the scientific community take a hard look at this before I accept at as truth.
So, it's different because I'm simply willing to let it be what it is: a potential data point.
You might want to read what people write before accusing them of hypocrisy.
generalgrog wrote:
And now the back patting begins.
GG
You can assume a posture of victimization, but you're not going to get any sympathy. Here's why: this wasn't a thread on discussing your views on evolution. It was a thread about a new find. You immediatly dismissed it based on your position, and not overly politely. You knew that that would provoke a response, and yet did so anyway. that's what the old folks call a troll post.
1: Not looking for sympathy
2: Wasn't trying to provoke a responce, just giving an alternate viewpoint.
3: The very nature of posting something relating to a hominid find, makes this a post about evolution, therefore fair game for me to express my viewpoint. I used the recent Ida hoax to shed light on what I consider just another hoax in the long line of macro evolutionary hoaxes.(agreed that it's a much more complex issue)
4: I don't think that I wasn't being polite. Not sure how my post could offend someone unless they were emotionally invested in the issue. (shrugs)
Ok... whos next on the great DAKKA evolutionist dogpile.
GG
edit..by the way just becauase dogma's opinion on the matter is one thing, doesn't make it true.
You should note that I've never identified myself as someone who believes in evolution. I've defended the notion that evolution is a theory which has been supported via scientific methodology (the notion that science is a thing in itself is ridiculous), but that is not the same thing as arguing that its correct.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
generalgrog wrote:
1: Not looking for sympathy
2: Wasn't trying to provoke a responce, just giving an alternate viewpoint.
3: The very nature of posting something relating to a hominid find, makes this a post about evolution, therefore fair game for me to express my viewpoint. I used the recent Ida hoax to shed light on what I consider just another hoax in the long line of macro evolutionary hoaxes.(agreed that it's a much more complex issue)
4: I don't think that I wasn't being polite. Not sure how my post could offend someone unless they were emotionally invested in the issue. (shrugs)
GG
Really? Calling the find "not science but big business" without any possible evidence is what counts as an alternative view point? Even here, you consider this a hoax? Why? What reason do you have to believe that it's a hoax?
Agreed, that acknowledging the sordid past of missing link research is a good thing, but there's a bit of a rule: you can either be a reasonable voice (arguing caution in the light of past hoaxes) or you can make unbased claims and take cheap shots (assuming it's a hoax, not science). Once you cross the line, you've crossed it.
It wasn't polite because you knew what your post would cause, and you knew there was a better way to phrase it.
Polonius wrote:
I don't believe I ever made an assertions about the evidence one way or the other. I'm highly skeptical about missing link stuff, for a variety of reasons. There is more reason to lie in hominid research due to the prestige, and more examples of frauds through out history. I'm comfy waiting back and letting the scientific community take a hard look at this before I accept at as truth.
So, it's different because I'm simply willing to let it be what it is: a potential data point.
You might want to read what people write before accusing them of hypocrisy.
It seemed from the agressiveness of your posts that you were taking the stance that you did believe it. It's pretty hard to see where you are coming from sometimes polonius.
generalgrog wrote:
It seemed from the agressiveness of your posts that you were taking the stance that you did believe it. It's pretty hard to see where you are coming from sometimes polonius.
My apologies.
GG
I was being aggressive because you were showing your true colors a bit. I do think that macro evolution is the best scientific explanation for speciation. Of course I also believe in a creator god, so figure that one out.
My view of this evidence is skeptical, to be sure, but you have to see that there is a difference between skepticism and outright a priori rejection.
Honestly, and I'm not trying to pile on here, I think the problem isn't that it's hard to see where I come from but that your position is genuinely pretty tenuous. There are flaws in the theory to be sure, but outside of "god created everything" there really aren't any better theories. And as a person who believes that god really did create everything, it still doesn't give biologists much to work with.
1. This thread has been reported. Lets restore it to modest rule in line with Dakka Rule #1 please.
2. That reminds me, speaking of babies. Why did the chicken cross the road? It was stapled to the baby.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The Yellow Submarine is a really awesome flick, it is too bad you don't see more stuff like that really. I have watched a live action (Magical Mystery Tour I think...) at one point, and I remember just wanting to watch some awesome animation .
A lot of Wrex's art draws a bit from The yellow sub though, very fluid and interesting patterns in that movie. Just a showcase for their music really, you can read further into it, but there is not much more too it besides hippy philosophy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/10/03 06:50:07
.
