Transitional Fossils

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

We are the only means we know of, by which the universe can contemplate it's own existence. You are special in that way.

Elephants, whales, and dolphins have large brains as well you know, elephants have been observed to display signs of grief over a death in the herd, other primates have been observed to display signs of self awareness, they know what "me" is. I think you may be too caught up in a cultural heritage that regards other species as nothing more than a food source, or a supplier of useful things like glue, furs, shoe leather etc. I don't think we are "special", we are just a mammalian species that finds itself on top of the food chain, dominating every other species on the planet (so far at least). As I said, it may be a tad presumptuous to assume that will always be the case!

Anthropomorphic climate on the other hand- believing that bad weather is caused by humans, is the most ancient superstition known to mankind. You give us too much credit, we're not really that powerful!

I agree we are not powerful to the extent that we can literally throw up tonnes of carbon based pollution into the atmosphere every day, and then simply correct any imbalances it causes in weather patterns by "reverse engineering". The planet we live on is not a car engine, we don't have a handy manual! We burn tonnes of wood, tonnes of oil, tonnes of stuff that would remain beneath the Earth's surface if we weren't digging it up and burning it every day. It is not like we are a few people around a camp fire any more, there are literally billions of us doing this.

You are a theist, you think your god won't allow the Earth to become toxic to humans right? Not until Armageddon and the second coming? To be honest, I hope you are right as a "climate change denier", why would I wish catastrophic climate change on future generations? Only a theist longing for the death of millions so Jesus can return thinks in that way.
Our best scientific brains say there is a sh*t storm coming our way. Every disrespect to your holy book, I value the opinion of our best scientific minds more highly.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yet according to a biblical fairy tale featuring a talking snake, woman came from a rib and man came from the dirt. Yes, so much more believable.

Meanwhile, you believe life somehow randomly came from non-life, God only knows how.

 

[Skwim]

Meanwhile, you believe life somehow randomly came from non-life, God only knows how.

At least there's actual, down-to-earth, hold-in-your-hand, non-life stuff, while the god thing only exists in the psychological cravings of the needy.

.

 

[Polymath257]

Meanwhile, you believe life somehow randomly came from non-life, God only knows how.

Not random. Through chemistry.

No atom in your body is alive. Yet the collection of atoms is.

 

[jonathan180iq]

She's appears no brighter than the organization, Christians Against Dinosaurs, she represents. ALTHOUGH, the whole thing has been declared a HOAX; a true PoE.




.

That's unfortunate... I really enjoyed what I thought was her sincere idiocy.

 

[DavidFirth]

Not random. Through chemistry.

No atom in your body is alive. Yet the collection of atoms is.

Because of the breath of God. Collections of atoms are not enough.

 

[DavidFirth]

At least there's actual, down-to-earth, hold-in-your-hand, non-life stuff, while the god thing only exists in the psychological cravings of the needy.

.

The apostles testified to the risen Christ. He ate with them, they saw his hands and feet and side and He was no fossil. If you dont believe them you dont believe them. I dont believe in scientists' guesses.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The apostles testified to ...

That is a statement of faith, not fact. There is widespread consensus that the synoptics are 2nd hand apologetics.

I dont believe in scientists' guesses.

Calling them 'guesses' demonstrates a telling, and most likely impenetrable, ignorance.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, I don't buy into the theory. It sounds like a last second throw to get away from "God created." No way men came from apes and no way whales came from bacteria.

The only people who really, really seem to care if god(s) is included in scientific theories and methodology are creationists. Most everyone else is just try to figure out where the evidence leads.
This notion where you think scientists and non-believers hate god and are desperately trying to remove/deny/ignore the evidence of "his" existence in their studies of the natural world is something creationists seem to make up to make themselves feel better or something. For the most part, I don't see any reason to believe that scientists (and non-believers) hate god and are desperately trying to remove/deny/ignore "his" existence in their studies of the natural world - that sounds like more of a creationist talking point to me. In fact, if there were sufficient evidence for the existence of god(s), they'd most likely be the first to accept it.

The evidence points to the apparent fact that apes and human beings share a common ancestor. That's the reason scientists accept it. And the best part about science is that if some evidence emerges that goes against that, then scientists will modify their theories (or throw them out) to accommodate that new evidence. I don't see this happening among creationists.

 

[Polymath257]

Because of the breath of God. Collections of atoms are not enough.

On the contrary, they are. Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. No 'life force' or 'breath of God' is required.

We have, for example, taken out the DNA of a cell and replaced it completely by human made DNA. DNA is a chemical. A complex chemical, yes. But a chemical nonetheless.

 

[Skwim]

That's unfortunate... I really enjoyed what I thought was her sincere idiocy.

Know exactly how you feel.

.

 

[Skwim]

The apostles testified to the risen Christ. He ate with them, they saw his hands and feet and side. . . .

And your evidence that this is true is what?

A cherry picked compilation of ancient writings assembled over hundreds of years into a single book to buttress a single goal. ​

If you dont believe them you dont believe them. I dont believe in scientists' guesses.

That you evidently think science is asking you to believe in their "guesses" only shows naïvety. Unlike the proponents of the Bible, science asks nothing of you. If you fail to recognize its evidence, and don't take the cautious conclusions it draws from them as sound then that's your loss.

.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Elephants, whales, and dolphins have large brains as well you know, elephants have been observed to display signs of grief over a death in the herd, other primates have been observed to display signs of self awareness, they know what "me" is. I think you may be too caught up in a cultural heritage that regards other species as nothing more than a food source, or a supplier of useful things like glue, furs, shoe leather etc. I don't think we are "special", we are just a mammalian species that finds itself on top of the food chain, dominating every other species on the planet (so far at least). As I said, it may be a tad presumptuous to assume that will always be the case!

It would be interesting to know their thoughts on the mysteries of the universe then, cosmogony, quantum physics, abiogenesis, evolution, exo-planets and so on... perhaps they ponder them every day, but as I said we are the only means we know of, that the universe can do this.

I agree we are not powerful to the extent that we can literally throw up tonnes of carbon based pollution into the atmosphere every day, and then simply correct any imbalances it causes in weather patterns by "reverse engineering". The planet we live on is not a car engine, we don't have a handy manual! We burn tonnes of wood, tonnes of oil, tonnes of stuff that would remain beneath the Earth's surface if we weren't digging it up and burning it every day. It is not like we are a few people around a camp fire any more, there are literally billions of us doing this.

The atmosphere is several quadrillion tonnes, we don't have much effect, even if carbon was considered pollution- in which case we are 'pollution based' lifeforms!

But how did that CO2 get there? from plants consuming this vital resource over millions of years. From >7000 ppm pre Cambrian, to a near starvation level of <300 pre-industrial. Helping open up vast deserts on Earth which were once lush.

Putting a tiny fraction of this back into the atmosphere, is literally the greenest form of recycling we can achieve.

You are a theist, you think your god won't allow the Earth to become toxic to humans right? Not until Armageddon and the second coming? To be honest, I hope you are right as a "climate change denier", why would I wish catastrophic climate change on future generations? Only a theist longing for the death of millions so Jesus can return thinks in that way.
Our best scientific brains say there is a sh*t storm coming our way. Every disrespect to your holy book, I value the opinion of our best scientific minds more highly.

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture, from such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

I value science the method, over any opinion of scientists- so often at odds with each other. The whole point of science is not having to take anyone's word for it, least of all politicians!

 

[jonathan180iq]

The atmosphere is several quadrillion tonnes, we don't have much effect, even if carbon was considered pollution- in which case we are 'pollution based' lifeforms!

But how did that CO2 get there? from plants consuming this vital resource over millions of years. From >7000 ppm pre Cambrian, to a near starvation level of <300 pre-industrial. Helping open up vast deserts on Earth which were once lush.

Putting a tiny fraction of this back into the atmosphere, is literally the greenest form of recycling we can achieve.

This is very similar to the argument made by people who supported CFCs and claimed that they couldn't possibly damage the Ozone because they were too heavy to get all the way up to the Stratosphere... Those people were wrong too.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

It would be interesting to know their thoughts on the mysteries of the universe then, cosmogony, quantum physics, abiogenesis, evolution, exo-planets and so on... perhaps they ponder them every day, but as I said we are the only means we know of, that the universe can do this.

Just because we can't see into the minds of other species doesn't mean we should dismiss their thoughts right? I'm pretty sure there are human beings in the world who don't give a hoot about cosmology, quantum physics etc. Should we shoot them in the head and boil them down to make glue? Just because they have other priorities doesn't make them inferior, it just means they have other priorities. TBH I expect the vast majority of our species has little or no opinion on "the mysteries of the universe, cosmogony [cosmology], quantum physics, abiogenesis, evolution, exo-planets and so on... ".
They wash it all away with "god did it" or they might say "I don't know". Shocking right?

The atmosphere is several quadrillion tonnes, we don't have much effect, even if carbon was considered pollution- in which case we are 'pollution based' lifeforms!

But how did that CO2 get there? from plants consuming this vital resource over millions of years. From >7000 ppm pre Cambrian, to a near starvation level of <300 pre-industrial. Helping open up vast deserts on Earth which were once lush.

Putting a tiny fraction of this back into the atmosphere, is literally the greenest form of recycling we can achieve.

I'm guessing you cut and pasted that from a theist website? You are not qualified as a scientist right? I'm not saying that invalidates your point, but you need to post some peer reviewed articles to back up your assertion, otherwise it remains just....an assertion.

I value science the method, over any opinion of scientists- so often at odds with each other. The whole point of science is not having to take anyone's word for it, least of all politicians!

I'm with you their bro, can you pass that on to Trump?

 

[Polymath257]

The atmosphere is several quadrillion tonnes, we don't have much effect, even if carbon was considered pollution- in which case we are 'pollution based' lifeforms!

OK, The mass of the atmosphere is about 5*10^18 kg. Now, by volume, CO2 is about .04%, and CO2 is about 1.5 times as massive per volume as air (44g/mole vs. 29 g/mole), so that makes it about .06% by mass.

In other words, the total mass of CO2 in our atmosphere is about 3*10^15 kg.

Each year, we put about 40 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, so about 4*10^13 kg.

If you divide those two numbers, you find that in 75 years, we put the equivalent of ALL the current CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now, our production of CO2 is higher than it was 100 years ago, but clearly a century of our emissions has a significant effect on total CO2 levels.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Just because we can't see into the minds of other species doesn't mean we should dismiss their thoughts right? I'm pretty sure there are human beings in the world who don't give a hoot about cosmology, quantum physics etc. Should we shoot them in the head and boil them down to make glue? Just because they have other priorities doesn't make them inferior, it just means they have other priorities. TBH I expect the vast majority of our species has little or no opinion on "the mysteries of the universe, cosmogony [cosmology], quantum physics, abiogenesis, evolution, exo-planets and so on... ".
They wash it all away with "god did it" or they might say "I don't know". Shocking right?

Some of us think God did it, some think it was chance, I don't think either are 'stupid', because we all use reason to reach different conclusions. Animals don't is my point, they are not pondering these questions to begin with, they are enviable at times I'd agree!

i.e. It's not about being 'superior', rather being the intended beneficiaries of this creation. A book written in French, is probably intended for a Frenchman, even if it is inhabited by many more bacteria..

I'm guessing you cut and pasted that from a theist website? You are not qualified as a scientist right? I'm not saying that invalidates your point, but you need to post some peer reviewed articles to back up your assertion, otherwise it remains just....an assertion.

No, all my own work! I assume everyone here is capable of forming their own arguments, at the very least it makes for a more interesting discussion

Peer pressure review gave us steady state, phrenology , Piltdown man, canals on Mars, global cooling, classical physics....

I'm less interested in what is labelled 'undeniable science' and more interested in what is actually true!


[/quote]
I'm with you their bro, can you pass that on to Trump?[/QUOTE]

He's not a career politician or scientist, so has a little more experience of how things actually work in the real world

 

[DavidFirth]

That is a statement of faith, not fact. There is widespread consensus that the synoptics are 2nd hand apologetics.

Calling them 'guesses' demonstrates a telling, and most likely impenetrable, ignorance.

That depends on who you ask. Guesses are guesses, though, you can try to call it something else but it is just guesses.

 

[DavidFirth]

On the contrary, they are. Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. No 'life force' or 'breath of God' is required.

We have, for example, taken out the DNA of a cell and replaced it completely by human made DNA. DNA is a chemical. A complex chemical, yes. But a chemical nonetheless.

But you can't create a living, breathing thing. That's my point.

 

[Mister Silver]

But you can't create a living, breathing thing. That's my point.

Neither can god. The empty cage still awaits.