Ain't that the truth!Originally Posted by ClassyPenguin
Science journalist are worse than gaming journos.
I bet its a dam time traveller who got eaten by a big animal, bloomin time travellers always messing things up.
So, basically, we're starting to realize that there might be entire populations of hominids that lived that we don't even know about.
Lord of the Rings is real after all.
One of the biggest problems with science is that what was once regarded as absolute truth is no longer true because of new data or testing methods. Evolution has never been proven and there always seems to be new data that just creates more questions than answers.The actual purpose of the comparison in this particular case is precisely to show that science is not a faith. In this case, what we're seeing is new evidence arriving, and then seeing scientific beliefs changing based on that new evidence. We used to think modern humans were much younger on an evolutionary time scale; evidence comes in suggesting humans are older; science adjusts accordingly.
This is explicit, complete and absolute contrast to the concept of faith, which is by definition something you believe in regardless of the evidence. If you have faith in X, then no amount of new information will adjust or revise your view of X.
That's why this particular sort of correction is so important. While I will again emphasize that religion and science are often compatible, this particular situation highlights the most important difference between the two systems; science adjusts to new facts and new evidence, while faith does not.
Science is the problem with scienceOriginally Posted by MajorPain
One of the biggest problems with science is that what was once regarded as absolute truth is no longer true because of new data or testing methods. Evolution has never been proven and there always seems to be new data that just creates more questions than answers.
wat? We have the fossil record, dude and DNA.Originally Posted by MajorPain
One of the biggest problems with science is that what was once regarded as absolute truth is no longer true because of new data or testing methods. Evolution has never been proven and there always seems to be new data that just creates more questions than answers.
Chrono Trigger predicted this.
Evolution will never be "proven" as theories in science are never "absolute truths." Which is why it's odd you claim such things exist and were overturned.Originally Posted by MajorPain
One of the biggest problems with science is that what was once regarded as absolute truth is no longer true because of new data or testing methods. Evolution has never been proven and there always seems to be new data that just creates more questions than answers.
Originally Posted by MajorPain
One of the biggest problems with science is that what was once regarded as absolute truth is no longer true because of new data or testing methods. Evolution has never been proven and there always seems to be new data that just creates more questions than answers.
"Theory" has more than one meaning, Evolution is fact and is accepted as so by any rational thinker,even some religions now agree it is fact too.
There is no "I don't believe it" any more, either you have not fully studied the evidence or you have refused to.
The record of human-kind gets pushed back 100k years therefore all science is false.Originally Posted by MajorPain
One of the biggest problems with science is that what was once regarded as absolute truth is no longer true because of new data or testing methods. Evolution has never been proven and there always seems to be new data that just creates more questions than answers.
oh boy, time for a new $400 textbook
Yes, it is. Faith does not preclude re-interpretation. Faith is believing or trusting something not seen. My belief in God is not in conflict with my understanding of evolution. Just because I interpret the word "Yom" as age or era (which is an acceptable interpretation btw) instead of day when the Bible mentions the six "days" of creation, doesn't mean I do not accept the Bible as the word of God.This is not open to discussion. This is literally the definition of faith; a belief in something regardless of evidence or proof. Both of the definitions you just applied fit that description. Faith is by literal definition the belief in something regardless of evidence.
Laugh at Young Earthers if you want, but don't lump all of us together.
Awesome quote, btw:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'" (Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 1, ch.19.)
In this case the half life refers to the degradation of the DNA's "backbone", which consists of sugar and phosphate molecules; organic matter, obviously, tends to break down quickly, but there are a few instances where remnants of soft tissue are preserved remarkably well intact. I was just reading about this in The Economist. Apparently a new paper was just released trying to explain this phenomenon:Originally Posted by gumby_trucker
It's important to make the distinction between physical half life such as that of radioactive isotopes which follows an exponential decay very closely, and biological half life, which is simply defined as the time until roughly half the molecules will lose their original properties. The latter is a more complex pattern of deterioration and is greatly affected by external conditions, including the initial number of molecules! (In exponential decay the deterioration pattern is independent of sample size). In the case of organic macromolecules like DNA, not just temperature, but also moisture has an extremely significant effect on how long a sample will be preserved, which makes sense.
I managed to learn all this during my investigation, so no harm done ;)
edit: More about deterioration and sample contamination can be found here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ology-science/
In this case, 700,000 year old prehistoric horse DNA was successfully reconstructed even though roughly 99.7% of the sample had been contaminated by microbial DNA throughout the millenia.
Dr Schweitzer and Dr Goodwin believe that highly reactive ions known as free radicals, which are produced by iron as it is released from the haemoglobin, interact with the organic tissue causing abnormal chemical bonds to form. These bonds effectively tie proteins in knots at the molecular level, much as the preservative formaldehyde does. This knot-tying makes the proteins unrecognisable to the sorts of bacteria that would normally consume them. This, they theorise, is how the soft tissues manage to survive for millions of years without rotting away.
The article goes on to speculate whether this could also apply to DNA molecules
Nah, you're wrong. Take a course on evolution. It's pretty much fact; anyone who is properly educated on it and STILL denies it is likely delusional.Originally Posted by MajorPain
One of the biggest problems with science is that what was once regarded as absolute truth is no longer true because of new data or testing methods. Evolution has never been proven and there always seems to be new data that just creates more questions than answers.
And nothing is ever proven, everything is supported to a certain degree, and evolution is HEAVILY supported.
But in order to modify those beliefs you need to stop having faith in them being true to do so. If I have faith that god does not want gay people to marry the same sex and I change my mind, I necessarily have lost faith that god does not want gay people to marry the same sex. There's no way around that. I might replace that with having faith that god doesn't mind if gay people marry the same sex but I had to lose faith in another belief.You can and do modify your beliefs all of the time. Your beliefs are not the exact same as they were 10 or even 5 years ago. Faith that does not change and grow is simply dogma.
Not necessarily. Beliefs can be maintained, but modified. If I believe God is responsible for the universe and, after studying the original language, I discover that the word we read as day means a specified duration of time and not 24 hours, then I have grown in my understanding of what is meant and adjust for other possibilities. I still believe that on the 7th "Day" God rested, but I can better understand it to mean we are STILL in the 7th "Day." It has been modified, not destroyed.Originally Posted by KHarvey16
But in order to modify those beliefs you need to stop having faith in them being true to do so. If I have faith that god does not want gay people to marry the same sex and I change my mind, I necessarily have lost faith that god does not want gay people to marry the same sex. There's no way around that. I might replace that with having faith that god doesn't mind if gay people marry the same sex but I had to lose faith in another belief.
Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. There IS proof of that occurring in nature. Speciation has also been observed in nature within our lifetime.Originally Posted by MajorPain
One of the biggest problems with science is that what was once regarded as absolute truth is no longer true because of new data or testing methods. Evolution has never been proven and there always seems to be new data that just creates more questions than answers.
How do you reinterpret to make sense of the fact that Genesis states there were land plants before the sun existed?Not necessarily. Beliefs can be maintained, but modified. If I believe God is responsible for the universe and, after studying the original language, I discover that the word we read as day means a specified duration of time and not 24 hours, then I have grown in my understanding of what is meant and adjust for other possibilities. I still believe that on the 7th "Day" God rested, but I can better understand it to mean we are STILL in the 7th "Day." It has been modified, not destroyed.
If it changes you must lose faith in whatever the idea was before you changed it. How can that not be true?Not necessarily. Beliefs can be maintained, but modified. If I believe God is responsible for the universe and, after studying the original language, I discover that the word we read as day means a specified duration of time and not 24 hours, then I have grown in my understanding of what is meant and adjust for other possibilities. I still believe that on the 7th "Day" God rested, but I can better understand it to mean we are STILL in the 7th "Day." It has been modified, not destroyed.
Pretty damn interesting I must say.
-- It's the entire basis of population genetics, landscape genetics, and modern conservation biology in fact. Using microsatellite mutations we can even directly measure genetic differentiation across populations over very short time periods.Originally Posted by CornBurrito
Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. There IS proof of that occurring in nature. Speciation has also been observed in nature within our lifetime.
Yearly textbook revisions at undergrad or below are entirely a money-making scheme by publishers to subvert the used market by fucking with the page order (justified by a few well=placed spelling errors) just enough to make last year's syllabus off point. I've never seen any textbook revisions add any significant new information or clarification ever. If it's not a scam then it's willful ignorance at such a staggering level as to question the academic credentials of those writing them. /rantNew evidence arrives, scientists adjust their understanding of history. Even in pretty significant ways, as in this case.
It would be so much cheaper if scientific textbooks required no revision and no editing. If only they could avoid costly revision and editing like many religious texts do, I'm sure my Biochem textbook from Sophomore year would have been noticeably cheaper.
Spot on.[Augustine quote]
Last edited by CrunchyFrog; Today at 05:49 AM.
Not to derail the thread, but spot on. Biggest load of shit students are forced to contend with after paying their already inflated tuition costs.Originally Posted by CrunchyFrog
Yearly textbook revisions at undergrad or below are entirely a money-making scheme by publishers to subvert the used market by fucking with the page order (justified by a few well=placed spelling errors) just enough to make last year's syllabus off point. I've never seen any textbook revisions add any significant new information or clarification ever. If it's not a scam then it's willful ignorance at such a staggering level as to question the academic credentials of those writing them. /rant
| Thread Tools | |