Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 28, 2015 at 5:16 pm
(This post was last modified: July 28, 2015 at 5:17 pm by Simon Moon.)
When I first joined this forum, I had the initial impression that Dritch had a bit better grasp on rationality than Christians I was running into at other sites.
That impression was quickly proven false, however.
As if the ancient (150 million years) existence of legs on the ancestors of modern snakes somehow provides evidence for the Biblical creation myths is laughable. Really Dritch, you may have reached a new low in rational thinking.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 11260
Threads: 61
Joined: January 5, 2013
Reputation:
123
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 28, 2015 at 11:12 pm
Okay, so, first of all: to everyone who inquired about Luckie, thank you. She's doing fine, we just got some... unexpected bleeding, which needs to be checked over when there's blood thinners involved. It was dramatic and scary to look at, but scans show nothing wrong and the hospital sent us home. Still, the well wishes are very appreciated.
Now, on with the show:
(July 28, 2015 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: I'd like to know where you got the 120million years ago?
I did a little thing called "additional research," which apparently you didn't do: the fossil has been dated to around 120 million years old, give or take. Just google its scientific name, it'll show up.
Quote:We have one specific snake found with legs, and even if that one specific snake had legs 120 million years ago doesn't mean that one snake was the last one or only of its kind. The only thing you can say for sure is this specific snake lived 'X' number of years ago, and because we do not have any other examples of this kind of snake we ASSume that the snake died off 120 million years ago.
Actually no, we don't need to assume that at all, as that is the conclusion that the evidence points to. Fossils can actually tell us a lot of things, and in this case, the fact that we've found no fossils of similar species in later strata is a good indication that that particular evolved trait died out millions of years ago. One would not be making an assumption by recognizing that no evidence exists of this kind of snake being alive at later dates; in fact, the assumption being made here is you, assuming that it did exist later on the basis of exactly no evidence. Projection has always been one of your strong suits, Drich.
Furthermore... you are aware that this particular four legged snake is not the ancestor of any currently extant snake species, yes? There was a cladogram made as a result of a phylogenetic study of the fossil done earlier in the year which shows that it is not a Serpentes snake; it and its four legs are actually several distinct branches on the cladogram away from the common ancestor of every modern snake. In fact, it is an extinct order of snake that's fully three significant branches away from even the common ancestor of current snakes. The idea that the four legged trait might have been inherited further down the line is fairly ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that the branch of the cladogram nearest to the Serpentes common ancestor without being in the same order is of a non-legged snake that predated some of the dinosaurs by 20 million years or so. So to be clear: the common ancestor of all extant snakes had no legs, and the preceding significant branching event also had no legs, and that was 80 million years or so back... in fact, the earliest snake we have knowledge of that had legs was 90 million years old, again before the origin of any language.
All of the evidence we have available points to what I'm saying, and yet you call it an assumption. You make a claim completely contradicting all the evidence based on nothing, and that's apparently fine.
Quote:In fact 'we' don't know what lived in the garden outside what the bible tells us do we? Therefore to say this animal did not live there when in fact the genesis account says that it does means your not only stepping out side the bounds of 'science' you are also speaking outside of the recorded History found in genesis.
So... what was that about assumptions? You're assuming the garden of eden existed, Drich.
Moreover, if you're just going to appeal to magic when you're backed into a corner, why bother with this pretense of respecting science in the first place? You'll crow high and low that science confirms something in the bible, but when you're pointed to additional science showing that it doesn't show what you think it shows, suddenly science doesn't matter, because it hasn't disproved what you want to be true. You're being a hypocrite; you can either accept what the science says in full or not, but you don't get to cherry pick and still assert that science confirms Genesis.
Quote:Sorry lax, but it doesn't seem your argument has a leg to stand on.
Only if you're unwilling to do any additional research before declaring victory, which apparently is the way you want to go on this.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 29, 2015 at 1:02 am
(This post was last modified: July 29, 2015 at 1:03 am by Lemonvariable72.)
(July 23, 2015 at 10:17 pm)Drich Wrote: The bible says it.
You 'good' people doubt it.
Science proves it.
http://www.nature.com/news/four-legged-f...st-1.18050
First off, awesome article. I love shit like that
Now first off lets address some issues with this being the snake in eden. Firstly if the snakes legs were lost through a curse and not evolution then why do some species of snake still have vestigial limbs? Secondly it saws this fossil here is 160-120 million years old, how does that match up with the geneologies listed in the bible that lead us too the conclusion that the earth is less then 10k years old?
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 29, 2015 at 3:29 am
I guess that bit of science is inaccurate, even though it's regarding the same piece of evidence. Some theists have this sort of spidey-sense.
Posts: 7318
Threads: 75
Joined: April 18, 2015
Reputation:
73
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 29, 2015 at 3:53 am
(July 28, 2015 at 11:12 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Okay, so, first of all: to everyone who inquired about Luckie, thank you. She's doing fine, we just got some... unexpected bleeding, which needs to be checked over when there's blood thinners involved. It was dramatic and scary to look at, but scans show nothing wrong and the hospital sent us home. Still, the well wishes are very appreciated.
That's a relief! Best of wishes to both of you
Posts: 46417
Threads: 540
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 29, 2015 at 4:24 am
Here are some other things in the 'because Science says so' set of cool stuff:
-The human race is not descended from a single Middle Eastern couple.
-There has never been a global flood.
-Biological evolution is real. Like, really real.
-The Universe is billions of years old, the Earth likewise.
-Photosynthesizing plants don't function without sunlight.
-Not all plants are fit to eat.
-Bats are not birds.
-Venomous snake bites require antivenom, not statues.
-Figs do not cure boils.
-Ostriches are actually very good parents.
Too many more to list. It seems that the Bible, contrary to the claim too often made, is a stunningly bad guide to science.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 29, 2015 at 4:46 am
It only has to be half right on a couple of things, after severe interpretation, and that's good enough apparently for a divinely inspired book.
Once again, the bar is so low you could stumble over it in your sleep.
Posts: 4705
Threads: 38
Joined: April 5, 2015
Reputation:
66
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 29, 2015 at 9:38 am
(July 29, 2015 at 4:46 am)robvalue Wrote: It only has to be half right on a couple of things, after severe interpretation, and that's good enough apparently for a divinely inspired book.
Once again, the bar is so low you could stumble over it in your sleep.
Yet a not-insignificant number of christians fail to reach even that high and disregard evolution entirely as either the work of Satan or God testing our faith, which apparently changes depending on their mood...
If you have any serious concerns, are being harassed, or just need someone to talk to, feel free to contact me via PM
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 29, 2015 at 12:40 pm
(July 28, 2015 at 5:16 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: When I first joined this forum, I had the initial impression that Dritch had a bit better grasp on rationality than Christians I was running into at other sites.
That impression was quickly proven false, however.
As if the ancient (150 million years) existence of legs on the ancestors of modern snakes somehow provides evidence for the Biblical creation myths is laughable. Really Dritch, you may have reached a new low in rational thinking.
Again the thing is sport that the only example of a legged snake we have just so happens to be 150 million years old (supposedly ) even so, it does not mean that was the last legged snake in existence.
Do you understand what that means?
It only means that that particular group of snakes with those specific type of legs 150 million years ago look like this.. That's not to say bigger snakes smaller snakes, snakes with 6 or more legs did not exist. It only means this one genus and species of snake existed how ever old they say this fossil to be. THAT DOES NOT MEAN no other legged snake or even this one particular genus and species did not exist well into the time Man walked the earth.
Remember flash, aligators got their start 150 million years before this fossil, and have not changed much since.
Posts: 13392
Threads: 187
Joined: March 18, 2012
Reputation:
48
RE: Ha, huh because.... Science says so!
July 29, 2015 at 1:04 pm
(July 29, 2015 at 4:24 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Here are some other things in the 'because Science says so' set of cool stuff: All that sodding has negitivly effected the common sense part of your brain.
Quote:-The human race is not descended from a single Middle Eastern couple.
The bible does not say this either. It says one couple introduced Children with a soul into the sea/cities of existing humanity.
Quote:-There has never been a global flood.
how do you know? because you were taught to look for indicators that something like a tsunami would leave behind? where water is pushing soil and debris from one area to another? You do understand that model is not consistant with how a GLOBAL FLOOD will work do you not? If the whole globe floods at once 'flood debris' would remain in place.
Quote:-Biological evolution is real. Like, really real.
so?
The bible makes no claims against it.
Quote:-The Universe is billions of years old, the Earth likewise.
so, the bible makes no claims against it.
Quote:-Photosynthesizing plants don't function without sunlight.
are you sitting down?
here is not only evidence that say otherwise but a link to a page that represents a WHOLE INDUSTRY that says other wise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics And if you look further you will note some plants grow better under the lamps than in direct sunlight... almost as if these plants we adapted to work in sunlight but perfered the light of Someone Else.
Quote:-Not all plants are fit to eat.
Soo.. you think that in a GARDEN Planted by God, one could not eat everything... Well that was true, in that their was forbidden fruit.
Quote:-Bats are not birds.
so?
Quote:-Venomous snake bites require antivenom, not statues.
God healed those people not a 'statues.'
Quote:-Figs do not cure boils.
if figs could cure boils wouldn't it stand to reason the bacteria that created a fig cured boil then would become extinct over this much time?
Quote:-Ostriches are actually very good parents.
it depends on the situation. Ostriches in captivity/farm just lay their eggs anywhere and don't care for them very well/they get trampled.
Quote:Too many more to list. It seems that the Bible, contrary to the claim too often made, is a stunningly bad guide to science.
Boru
maybe you should list them because the ones you did list failed pretty hard
|