Aliens
- Thread starter skunkushybrid
- Start date
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Gravity in loose terms is both theory and fact. There is a fact that bodies with mass attract each other. Scientific theories are merely models for how we see reality work. They attempt to offer explanation in terms of mechanism and/or offer a model of the effects of the force. Newton gave us the law of gravitation, not called a theory because it merely gave us the ability to calculate effects which was determined by observation. He never proposed a mechanism as to what causes gravity. Einstein came in and gave us a reason that objects appear to be attracted. He also refined the Newtonian equation to fit within this new paradigm. The idea that objects are pushed toward each other due to the bending of spacetime is in fact a theory because it attempts to give an explanation of why gravitation appears to exist. No one in science seriously disputes that gravity is a real force. This is parallel to evolution, something which actually occurs in nature. Darwin's theory of natural selection is the proposed mechanism (along with mutation) to explain why and how things evolve, something that was evident and mostly accepted even before Darwin. No serious scientist doubts evolution takes place which is why the evolution vs. creation debates are ridiculous. They aren't attempting to disprove Darwin's idea of how evolution occurs but actually dispute the fact of evolution, something akin to disputing gravitation occurs.
doowmd
Well-Known Member
@ sureshot: nice link man, thanks! Won't let me rep ya again, but i put it in the "file cabinet" to do later! never been to that 'rabbithole' website....got any more links to sites like that? the only one I go to (semi-regular) is disclose.tv
@mindphuk: you are deep man. and I appreciate your input on everything that you've contributed to this thread. I don't think (some) people debate whether or not evolution occurs, I think what's debatable is whether or not human's 'evolved' from apes/monkey's/ or what-have-you. My college Biology Prof. REFUSED to teach evolution. Which I found rather odd. But he wouldn't delve into creation either. Nor would my Western Civ. (up to 164
Prof.! See....that's the problem: we've got all of these "brilliant minds" that can tell us what didn't happen, but none are brave enough to try and explain what DID!! I know it would just be speculation anyway.....but you see where I'm coming from?
btw: I repped you for your posts too midphuck!
@mindphuk: you are deep man. and I appreciate your input on everything that you've contributed to this thread. I don't think (some) people debate whether or not evolution occurs, I think what's debatable is whether or not human's 'evolved' from apes/monkey's/ or what-have-you. My college Biology Prof. REFUSED to teach evolution. Which I found rather odd. But he wouldn't delve into creation either. Nor would my Western Civ. (up to 164
Prof.! See....that's the problem: we've got all of these "brilliant minds" that can tell us what didn't happen, but none are brave enough to try and explain what DID!! I know it would just be speculation anyway.....but you see where I'm coming from? btw: I repped you for your posts too midphuck!
Sure Shot
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
"The first calculations of the age of the calendar were made based on the rise of Orion, a constellation known for its three bright stars forming the "belt" of the mythical hunter."
I don't think I'm being critical when I say that doesn't sound very scientific to me at all.
These scientists are basing the age of these monoliths off of the precession of the Earths tilt in conjunction with the Orion constellation.
This is where other branches of science come into play to help answer the new questions that arise.
How do they know whoever placed the stones did it at the same time the constellation was in that exact position? Just because it seems to line up? Like I said before, that isn't scientific, it's inconclusive, we need more.
Sure Shot
Well-Known Member
" But new and more precise measurements kept increasing the age. The next calculation was presented by a master archaeoastronomer who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of ridicule by the academic fraternity. His calculation was also based on the rise of Orion and suggested an age of at least 75,000 years. The most recent and most acurate calculation, done in June 2009, suggests an age of at least 160,000 years, based on the rise of Orion -- flat on the horizon -- but also on the erosion of dolerite stones found at the site."
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
There is a reason they don't use more accurate measurements, and it isn't because brush fires are common in the area bro.
Chemical samples CAN be taken and measured to within +/- 3%.
Erosion of stones is also inconclusive, you would need something to compare it to, you'd need to know exactly how fast that particular stone eroded, wind speeds over time, a bunch of stuff. Point is the degree in error with that method is much higher than +/- 3%, which I suspect is why it was used.
Sure Shot
Well-Known Member
"you'd need to know exactly how fast that particular stone eroded, wind speeds over time, a bunch of stuff."
"Some pieces of the marker stones had been broken off and sat on the ground, exposed to natural erosion. When the pieces were put back together about 3 cm of stone had already been worn away. These calculation helped assess the age of the site by calculating the erosion rate of the dolerite."
"Some pieces of the marker stones had been broken off and sat on the ground, exposed to natural erosion. When the pieces were put back together about 3 cm of stone had already been worn away. These calculation helped assess the age of the site by calculating the erosion rate of the dolerite."
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
...maybe I'll go read the rest of that link..
What's your opinion about the dating method they're primarily using? The precession method.
Sure Shot
Well-Known Member
I honestly wouldn't be completely satisfied unless there was a signed, "born on date".
But we got to go with what we got, and always be willing to let the evidence lead the way.
Your right to be skeptical. I'm really interested in the mining site, and what evidence, and or theories that come from it.
It's supposed to be the largest deposit of gold on Earth, according to claims.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
I honestly wouldn't be completely satisfied unless there was a signed, "born on date".
But we got to go with what we got, and always be willing to let the evidence lead the way.
Your right to be skeptical. I'm really interested in the mining site, and what evidence, and or theories that come from it.
It's supposed to be the largest deposit of gold on Earth, according to claims.
Oh yeah, I read that part, they said a civilization of around 200,000 people lived there and mined gold. That raised a question in my mind. How exactly would the economy of that day work? It being the only civilization of the period, what would their use be for gold?
Sure Shot
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I started thinking of Sumerian legends and then they went on to make the same connection.
It's fascinating how the Ancient Alien theory takes away all the magic of history, while leaving the stories intact.
Man has just been trying to interpret something it couldn't understand.
This misinterpretation of facts has traveled a twisted grapevine rot with greed, arrogance, & ignorance.
It's fascinating how the Ancient Alien theory takes away all the magic of history, while leaving the stories intact.
Man has just been trying to interpret something it couldn't understand.
This misinterpretation of facts has traveled a twisted grapevine rot with greed, arrogance, & ignorance.
Guy Dasilva
Well-Known Member
"(why are there still apes on this planet if we descended from them)"
Evolution is out of necessity, not just something that happens for no reason. Those apes in particular never had a reason to evolve like us.
Evolution is out of necessity, not just something that happens for no reason. Those apes in particular never had a reason to evolve like us.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
"(why are there still apes on this planet if we descended from them)"
Evolution is out of necessity, not just something that happens for no reason. Those apes in particular never had a reason to evolve like us.
Actually this is not true. Evolution occurs all of the time, necessity has nothing to do with it as it is an undirected process. Modern apes have evolved just as much as we have. We are not evolved from modern apes but from a common ancestor between us and chimpanzees. Even so, the original question creates more than one misconception. It is like asking that if Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans? Evolution often can produce more than one species from a single basal form and unless the original goes extinct, they all can co-exist contemporaneously.
Guy Dasilva
Well-Known Member
It is my opinion that with no variation there is no evolution, having said that variation happens all the time and probably wont ever stop. BTW the ape thing was @ mindphuk Good post +rep
is co-exist not the definition of contemporaneous?
is co-exist not the definition of contemporaneous?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
It's a bit redundant I guess, lol.
I think it's more than just your opinion. You're correct in that variation is essential to evolution. The strange thing is that IDers seem to deny that enough variation can build up enough differences to where we would call it a different species that the group that it originally came from. We actually see this currently in nature where a species' territory has spread to the point that some members of the species is in a very different environment than others.
The various Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast all descended from a common ancestral population. As the species spread southward from Oregon and Washington, subpopulations adapted to their local environments on either side of the San Joaquin Valley. From one population to the next, in a circular pattern, these salamanders are still able to interbreed successfully. However, where the circle closes -- in the black zone on the map in Southern California -- the salamanders no longer interbreed successfully. The variation within a single species has produced differences as large as those between two separate species.
It's strange to me that people that deny ''macro' evolution cannot offer up any explanation as to what prevents 'micro' evolution to continue to the point that it is considered macro, i.e. creates new species. They put up an artificial barrier and cannot explain what creates that barrier, what exactly prevents a new species from forming.
Hydrotech364
Well-Known Member
I thought that it is at the time of or near Extinction that evolution occurs.Macro.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Extinction events play a major role in diversification because of the radically changed environment changes the fitness of almost all species. Extinction events give us the best chance to see major changes in the fossil record. The thing is, science doesn't really recognize the distinction between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution as it is all a continuum. It is the creationists and IDers that have defined macro as evolving a new species. The problem is that even though they defined it, when we show them examples of such evolution, they still deny it is macro. They have a bad habit of continuing to move the goal posts.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Evolution happens all the time.
