Thread: Relative to the rest of the West, why is the US so anti-science?

Originally Posted by countryboy

I believe the species of grass you're smoking, doesn't grow in blade form.

Such an elegant refutation of the mountain of evidence I linked to:

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

More speciation and macroevolution direct evidence/proof:

(see section 5 which is quite long):
Observed Instances of Speciation

So its fine to believe in a god for which there is no scientific evidence, yet its ok to ignore scientific evidence on speciation and claim that there is no proof that new species can be created from prior ones. There's a dozen different humanoid/hominid finds in the fossil record, of various stages of walking upright and larger brains. Maybe your lack of comprehension is that you're looking for one missing link in the fossil record when in actuality there are dozens of links between modern man and our common ancestor.





Its like trying to convince a brick wall that it's made of bricks. No amount of evidence or data will convince the brick wall.

Originally Posted by countryboy

Is it safe to say we disagree?

I really am not playing any games. Furthermore, I never said my belief in a Creator plays no role in my opinion, it does. I don't always bring it up because I get tired of the tooth fairy, and imaginary friend comments.

I can understand the sentiment. That sort of goading is likely tiresome. Though I'm not an atheist myself, such comments don't offend me - I just view it as someone trying to get a rise out of someone else.

I present the facts as I see 'em, and, in the case of the fossil record, they are the irrefutable facts. If you have evidence of a transitional species, I'd like to see it.

Just a quick googling yielded this, which I vaguely remember reading about:

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

There are plenty of others. But, at the end of the day, if you were to posit that all such fossils are simply the product of different, similar creatures now extinct, there would probably be no dissuading you from that opinion.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

No, you're quite clearly playing games. All fossils are transitional fossils.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Wow, that's amazing! You are able to determine what's in my heart better than I can. That must come in handy on the beat, eh?

There are credible scientists who refute the transitional fossil theory, so your little FAQ link doesn't do much for me, you didn't even post it with your original snide comment. Musta taken you minutes of research to find it. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by countryboy

Wow, that's amazing! You are able to determine what's in my heart better than I can. That must come in handy on the beat, eh?

There are credible scientists who refute the transitional fossil theory, so your little FAQ link doesn't do much for me, you didn't even post it with your original snide comment. Musta taken you minutes of research to find it. :rolleyes:

No, not really, and I'm not being snide: it is a fundamental concept that all fossils are, in most precise sense, "transitional" because of the improbability that any one fossil represents an absolute termination of an evolutionary path.

You either don't understand that or don't choose to, but it has nothing to do with any snideness, and that "little FAQ" doesn't do much for you because you refuse to read it, but rather rely on alleged positions of unnamed scientists who somehow, magically, have 'refuted' the transitional fossil theory.

Don't get angry with me when you scientific illiteracy is thrown back at you.

Hello out there,

I keep reading statements that 100% certainty. This is odd, because most people beleive in God and you can prove or disprove that. Back to fossils:

I would view these things not as absolute proof, rather as a jigsawpuzzel.

Lawyers would call this indirect evidence and many people have been hanged using this method. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by bennyhill

Hello out there,

I keep reading statements that 100% certainty. This is odd, because most people beleive in God and you can prove or disprove that. Back to fossils:

I would view these things not as absolute proof, rather as a jigsawpuzzel.

Lawyers would call this indirect evidence and many people have been hanged using this method. Am I wrong?

Not only are you wrong, you're only barely comprehensible.

Originally Posted by bennyhill

Hello out there,

I keep reading statements that 100% certainty. This is odd, because most people beleive in God and you can prove or disprove that. Back to fossils:

I would view these things not as absolute proof, rather as a jigsawpuzzel.

Lawyers would call this indirect evidence and many people have been hanged using this method. Am I wrong?

Ummm....Wut?

Is the coelacanth a transitional fossil?

Originally Posted by countryboy

Is the coelacanth a transitional fossil?

While it's swimming?

Im sorry for being a human,

What I tried to say is that your expectations are too high (you dont habe to trust our scientist). Scientist are trying to explain what is going on and are using scientific methods. We are just at the begining in understanding the weather. Its very complicated

You may be right that in 300 years Scientist will prove us wrong, but who knows? Dr. Sigmand Freud was a pionier in his field. Today he doesnt hold
much support.