It is also obvious that I have offended you and for that I apologize.I do feel that the apparent need to lash out at me personally and attempt vilify me validates my point that there is a religious aspect to evolution.
I won`t pretend to know all details of PE but in general it theorizes that at certain times for unknown reasons evolution essentially ran amok.This results in a rapid evolutionary jump in species.This is to explain the lack of transitional species and why fossils of species suddenly appear in the rock strata.It is not an implausible theory but is still a theory.
One final word.When I was in school dinosaurs were taught to be slow moving cold blooded reptiles.I suppose this was by comparing bone structure,tooth shape,etc and they compared to what we could observe in modern life.
Now because of other similarities it is believed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.One problem was that birds are warm blooded so at least in part for this, dinosaurs are now believed to be perhaps warm blooded faster moving animals.I have no idea which is correct but my point is 30 years ago disagreement on the established scientific position was rejected as stupid or uneducated.
Now that scientific opinion has or is shifting from the earlier position any one disagreeing is once again declared stupid or uneducated.I again won`t pretend to know all the evidence for the newer hypothesis but to some extent it seems to be to meld evolutionary theory.I simply don`t understand why on this issue any challenge to whatever the current thinking may be is rejected out of hand if it does not come from the position that evolution is an established fact beyond any question.
I don`t know that this is a appropriate definition of science.
I don`t begrudge you or any others their opinions.I don`t care what you think of me personally.I do think we all deserve to be courteous to each other.
Dinosaurs were obviously related to reptiles, and the early reconstructions reflected this. Reptiles are cold blooded, therefore dinosaurs must have been cold blooded. Reptiles walk with splayed legs, therefore dinosaurs must have walked with splayed legs. Reptiles drag their tails so therefore dinosaurs must have dragged their tails.
Not all early paleontologists accepted that dinosaurs were slow-moving, cold-blooded critters (more creationist misinformation). Some reconstructions from the 1920s and 30s show very active dinosaurs. These paleontologists noted that extent dinosaur tracks showed the animals with legs under their bodies and lacked any tail marks. Recent analysis of dinosaur bones show that most were at least semi-warm blooded (bones of warm-blooded animals are very vascular; dinosaur bones fall between the ranges of warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals).
Creationists are always mired in their personal pasts. "Thirty years ago, such-and-such was taught, and now we're told something different, therfore it's all wrong and no one knows what he or she's talking about." Creationists never make allowances for advances in science (except when it reinforces a personal position, such as global warming). Of course, science marches on despite the braying nay-sayers.
Not at all -- if you can provide sufficient evidence that my view is wrong or that yours is correct, I'll happily change my beliefs.
I do find it somewhat amusing that many here probably have decried how liberals immediately call conservaitves stupid and ignorant because we don`t share their social or political views and yet given the chance do the same.
What "social or political views" do you think are being discussed here? My post to you concerned your errors of *fact*, not social or political preferences.
Now I am a big boy and you can call me names all day long,it really does`nt matter to me and I don`t intend to reciprocate.
I didn't call you any names at all.
This is unfortunate because I suspect we probably agree on more things than we disagree on.
Probably so.
It is also obvious that I have offended you and for that I apologize.
You haven't offended me at all.
I do feel that the apparent need to lash out at me personally and attempt vilify me validates my point that there is a religious aspect to evolution.
How have I allegedly "vilified" you? And the closest I came to "lashing out at you personally" was to point out that you said a number of things which were mistaken, and I asked you if you wanted to reconsider your belief that you knew what you were talking about (on this subject, of course). I then asked you to put one of your beliefs to the test.
How in the heck does that qualify as "a religious aspect to evolution"?
Even if I had been much more aggressive in my reply, how would that demonstrate any "religious aspect" in my position? Is it really your contention that the only reason someone might get obnoxious is if they're doing so from a "religious" motivation? Are you sure you want to go there?
While it's true that science itself is usually (although not always) best performed dispassionately, that hardly means that someone defending a scientific position from attack is required to be inhumanly calm while doing so. Scientists are human too, and are just as likely as anyone else to get annoyed (or even downright p***ed off) when confronted with unfair attacks.
For example, let's turn the tables for a moment -- consider that no matter how calm and confident a theist might be in his faith, if someone barges into a theological discussion and smugly says something like, "you guys are idiots for not realizing that Adam couldn't have loaded Christ and the apostles onto his Ark...", we'd certainly understand if the theist was tempted to respond along the lines of, "listen, a**hole..."
I won`t pretend to know all details of PE but in general it theorizes that at certain times for unknown reasons evolution essentially ran amok.
No, sorry, it doesn't "theorize that". Honestly, even leaving the details aside, you shouldn't "pretend to know even the generalities of PE".
The reasons for fluctuations in the pace of evolution are hardly "unknown". They include population sizes, founder effects, genetic drift, extinctions, fortuitous genetic breakthroughs, varying selection pressures, and so on.
And even during periods of more rapid change evolution is not "running amok".
This results in a rapid evolutionary jump in species.
"Rapid" being a relative term, of course. It still doesn't happen overnight. We're still talking about hundreds of years, at the *very* least -- more often thousands.
This is to explain the lack of transitional species
Hardly, since there is no "lack of transitional species".
and why fossils of species suddenly appear in the rock strata.
No, that's most often caused by a species evolving in a limited geographic area (few biological events of any sort occur over entire regions of the planet), and then later its descendants spread further afield. In the lands migrated into, the new species will appear (in the fossil record) to have "suddenly appeared" there. In the same way, humans "suddenly appeared" in Australia tens of thousands of years ago, not because they were created there from scratch, but because that's when they spread to that continent from their afro-asian origins.
It is not an implausible theory but is still a theory.
Are you aware of how well supported a paradigm needs to be in science before it's considered "a theory"?
One final word.When I was in school dinosaurs were taught to be slow moving cold blooded reptiles.I suppose this was by comparing bone structure,tooth shape,etc and they compared to what we could observe in modern life.
Mostly the latter.
Now because of other similarities it is believed that birds evolved from dinosaurs. One problem was that birds are warm blooded so at least in part for this, dinosaurs are now believed to be perhaps warm blooded faster moving animals.
The cold-blooded view was held because of comparisons to other (still-living) reptiles, and before much other evidence was available on which to base a conclusion. But as evidence accumulated (and it has accumulated with exponential speed), it became apparent that the initial presumptions were mistaken, and today the issue of warm-blooded dinosaurs (at least some of them -- they're a very diverse family) is very well supported by many independent lines of evidence.
Science is always refining its knowledge and continually homing in closer and closer to the "right answers", in all their detailed complexity. I don't think anyone needs to apologize for that. I have no idea which is correct
As with most of science, the more recent views are more complete and accurate.
but my point is 30 years ago disagreement on the established scientific position was rejected as stupid or uneducated.
No, actually, it wasn't. Perhaps you'd care to try to support your assertion.
Fresh ideas and views are always welcome in science, just as long as they've not already been falsified by the evidence. Unfortunately for creationists, they're frequently trying to bring up attacks on evolution which have already been falsified -- some of which were falsified back in the EIGHTEENTH CENTURY, for pete's sake. So perhaps you'll begin to understand our exasperation whenever yet another person drops in eager to tell us "where we're wrong", using stuff that is *itself* flat wrong, and which was old the *first* forty or fifty times we heard it...
Now that scientific opinion has or is shifting from the earlier position any one disagreeing is once again declared stupid or uneducated.
Again, no, they're not.
I again won`t pretend to know all the evidence for the newer hypothesis but to some extent it seems to be to meld evolutionary theory.
Huh?
I simply don`t understand why on this issue any challenge to whatever the current thinking may be is rejected out of hand if it does not come from the position that evolution is an established fact beyond any question.
Look, feel free to challenge "current thinking" coming from some other position. There are no "dogma purity tests". But it *would* be nice if every once in a while the hordes who keep popping by to "disprove" evolution (or identify "holes" in it) knew what in the hell they were talking about. The number of people who *think* they understand enough about evolutionary biology to competently critique it, vastly exceeds the number of people who actually *do*. It's like watching a bunch of first-graders attempting to challenge the foundations of quantum physics. (And while I'm exaggerating there for effect, it's unfortunately not by much...)
I've got nothing with people asking questions, even challenging ones, as long as they're aware that they don't already have all the answers and might be able to learn something about the subject. But the arrogance of most anti-evolutionists is breathtaking. They seem to think they already have all the answers. They make sweeping, absolutist (but ironically incorrect) statements like, "Evolution cannot nor has been demonstrated by any means what so ever." Oh, wait, that was you, wasn't it?
Or they make insulting implications about the alleged unsavory motivations of people who believe in evolution, like, "Evolution is the religion of those who would elevate man above God." Oh, wait, that was you again, wasn't it?
I don`t know that this is a appropriate definition of science.
If it was actually practiced the way you think, you'd have a point, but since it isn't, you don't.
I don`t begrudge you or any others their opinions.
Nah, you just imply that we're stupid enough to believe something that "cannot nor has been demonstrated by any means what so ever", and that we do so because we want to "elevate man above God"... Gee, thanks.
I don`t care what you think of me personally.
I *know* what you think of *us* personally.
I do think we all deserve to be courteous to each other.
Then why don't you start?