Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Newbie Questions
by fairtrader. 12/05/23 14:22
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 12/04/23 11:34
Square root rule
by Smallz. 12/02/23 09:15
RTest not found error
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 21:43
neural function for Python to [Train]
by TipmyPip. 12/01/23 14:47
Xor Memory Problem.
by TipmyPip. 11/28/23 14:23
Training with command line parameters
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:42
Combine USD & BTC Pairs In Asset Loop
by TipmyPip. 11/26/23 08:30
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Tactics of World War I
Who's Online Now
3 registered members (TedMar, AndrewAMD, fairtrader), 578 guests, and 0 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
fairtrader, hus, Vurtis, Harry5, KelvinC
19019 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: Funny creationist/lunatic website [Re: Ran Man] #144882
08/04/07 07:58
08/04/07 07:58
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

The okapi was once thought to have been extinct until they were found still living.
These animals were once used as evidence that the horse had evolved.




They didn't have to adjust their overall theory about the
horse and it's evolution at all, it's just that this single branch
of species managed to survive. The okapi is still part of
the Equidae family (horses and closely related species) and
the fact that it still lives doesn't mean it has no part in the horse's evolution.
Often branches die out if they have been important in evolution, but by far not always.
Also don't forget the okapi was discovered in 1901! So you're talking about
outdated details anyways, nowadays the okapi is thought the be closely related to giraffes,
not so much zebras but it does share a common ancestor (hence the horse link).

By the way science is dynamic and thus able to adjust, new
knowledge often means changing a theory or adjusting a
certain scientific view. So what? That's the only way to
properly deal with information.

Can't say that will ever happen in any religion, because
they will simply deny the knowledge exists in the first place...

Cheers

Re: Funny creationist/lunatic website [Re: PHeMoX] #144883
08/04/07 15:52
08/04/07 15:52
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
Ran Man Offline
Expert
Ran Man  Offline
Expert

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,682
Coppell, Texas
Actually, I was only joking with you guys about relating "science" to these fossilogy experts claims.
Quote:


By the way science is dynamic and thus able to adjust,




Well, but, real science is not actually "science" until it is proven as a fact. If it were ever accepted as science and then had to be adjusted later, then that is an error.
<Gamestudio Crash in Function XX>

See the definition of science below for example.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
Quote:

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.





Theories != Science;

Because if that were true, then global warming or the Kennedys assasination would be a science. lol

Sadly though, a lot of good and educated people think that theories is science.

Hey, you guys are great and nice talking to you.
Well, back to making the trailor movie!

My game trailor movie is weird, because all the super SMART HUMANS get turned into animals. HAHAHA! Oh well...

<reverse evolution> just joking


Cougar Interactive

www.zoorace.com
Re: Funny creationist/lunatic website [Re: JetpackMonkey] #144884
08/04/07 19:56
08/04/07 19:56
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

If it really were a trilobite, it would be big news throughout the biology community and in newspapers and science journals everywhere.


Right. Thats very important to be in the newspapers and science journals.

Of course, the fact that nothing can actually be in any newspapers before it is discovered makes no difference I suppose. Apparently we have already made all the important scientific discoveries, because if something has truly been discovered, it would have already been in the scientific journals and newspapers. makes sense to me.

Here Ran man has given three examples of creatures who were thought to be extinct yet were found to be contemporary, therefore it follows that there is certainly a likelihood of finding living trilobites. The possibility of a discovery has nothing to do with science journals.

Quote:

Isopods and horseshoe crabs are no trilobites, sorry.


Im glad your feeling very certain about it, but I think taxonomy is a vague guideline. From Darwin to Gould, evolutionary theory has always attempted to haze the line between static catagorization of type. Evolutionary theory holds that everything is in a process of transformation, therefore there is no strict typology. However you seem to be placing a great deal of trust in a belief that a trilobite is a certain type. Really the notion of type itself is a creationist viewpoint, and taxonomy itself was begun by a creationist. I find it strange that you would make such an absolute appeal to something which really doesnt exist in the minds of most biologists since I think that you yourslef claim to be some type of scientist I suppose.

I will read some more about them, but from what I have read so far, their doesnt seem to be much known about the trilobites, therefore we really cant be too certain about their relationship with other species, as well as which ones decended from them.

Basically a tendency to catagorize closely related species falls short when you dont realize that natural selection works on the functional level, not necessarily the species level. In other words, when you are observing natural selection, you wouldnt be concerned whether the creature you observed was a "trilobite" or "horseshoe crab", your only concern would be the functional mechanisms of survival themselves.

Quote:

By the way science is dynamic and thus able to adjust, new
knowledge often means changing a theory or adjusting a
certain scientific view. So what? That's the only way to
properly deal with information.



My point exactly. Thats why as a scientist it might be hard to say with any certainty what type of a creature this newly discovered thing is.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1