talkorigins.org · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re: You keep using that word... by alva_edison · 2013-06-26 06:00 · Score: 1 · on Proof Mooted For Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC250.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

Re: You keep using that word... by alva_edison · 2013-06-26 06:00 · Score: 1 · on Proof Mooted For Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC250.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

Re:Excuse me? by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-05-22 15:28 · Score: 1 · on The Canadian Government's War On Science

Sorry, but that's false. The Piltdown Man was never generally accepted outside of Britain.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html

Your argument is based on a completely false premise.

Re:You are not a qualified expert in climate chang by lgw · 2013-05-13 09:32 · Score: 1 · on Interviews: Freeman Dyson Answers Your Questions

Most science is conducted by making falsifiable predictions about future measurements. Confirmed (or falsified) predictions speak for themselves, the "authority" of the scientists is irrelevant. Also, it doesn't take an "authority" to call BS - the burden is on the scientist making the claims to answer skeptics. If skeptics keep asking the same dumb questions, you make a FAQ. Saying "I'm right because shut up" is not science.

Dyson is rightly pointing out that this is a new area without much track record, and without much depth of understanding of underlying mechanisms. He's not saying "you're wrong" so much as "don't get cocky yet - you still might be wrong about something important".

Re:Scientists Are Cracking the Primordial Soup Mys by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-13 10:09 · Score: 0 · on Scientists Are Cracking the Primordial Soup Mystery

It isn't random, it's chemistry. You were informed of this the last time you posted on the subject.

Re:Nooooooo! Just shut up and buy a dinosaur saddl by Hatta · 2013-04-02 04:14 · Score: 1 · on Ask Slashdot: How Do I Explain That Humans Didn't Ride Dinosaurs?

If you read the OP, "... she told me a story about how her grandfather, fifty years ago, dated footprints of a dinosaurs and a man that were right next to each other to be within the same epoch of history...The odd thing is that she's not religious, it's just what her archaeologist grandfather taught her."

If that's all it is, then simply pointing her to talk origins should be all that's necessary to correct her. This should have happened the first time she repeated this belief to an educated audience, and should only have to happen once.

You've never made a claim which turned out to be wrong?

I didn't say that. I was wrong recently when I said here that the PSP had hardware PSX emulation. But that's hardly a consequential fact, unlike basic facts of paleontology. It's possible to have a coherent model of the world where PSX emulation is implemented in hardware. But finding man tracks next to dinosaur tracks would upend entire disciplines of earth science.

Also, all it took was a PSP coder mentioning that I was wrong, with a sentence explaining how he knew. I'm pretty sure I thanked him for correcting me too.

easy by milkmage · 2013-04-01 06:23 · Score: 3, Insightful · on Ask Slashdot: How Do I Explain That Humans Didn't Ride Dinosaurs?

"The odd thing is that she's not religious, it's just what her archaeologist grandfather taught her." ...so it sounds like she's just repeating what she was told as a child.. not the church or religion. I don't see a problem correcting someone who was misinformed.

"crushing her childhood dreams" ...just tell her she mis-remembered (she was a kid afterall). It wasn't dinosaurs.. it was another (now-extinct) animal that actually did exist the at the same time as ancient humans (we hunted them, so of course there were footprints)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolly_mammoth

The woolly mammoth coexisted with early humans, who used its bones and tusks for making art, tools, and dwellings. It is thought much of this material was scavenged, but the species was also hunted for food. It disappeared from its mainland range at the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 years ago, most likely through a combination of climate change, consequent disappearance of its habitat, and hunting by humans, though the significance of these factors is disputed.

or just point her at this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html (beware: it does mention creationism... you don't want to accuse her of being that)... basically it says the "mantracks" are actually those of a 3-toed dino, but the toe part eroded leaving what looks like feet.

whatever you, make sure you block this at your proxy http://creationmuseum.org/

Re:Where do I collect the money? by Sigma+7 · 2013-03-27 18:00 · Score: 3, Informative · on Creationist Bets $10k In Proposed Literal Interpretation of Genesis Debate

The traditional trick of these publicity stunts is to post a challenge, and claim there was no response otherwise and therefore it is true. The claim is made while plugging fingers in the ears and pretending there's no contradictions.

Look back to the Kent Hovind challenge, where he posted $250,000 to prove evolution. He gradually shifted the challenge from "provide any evidence of evolution" to "demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that God couldn't cause the big bang" - and each step at asking for clarification was given non-answers (if any).

Even if someone did manage to complete his challenge, Kent Hovind couldn't pay the amount - he's a NINJA - No Income, Job or Asset, by his own bankruptcy claim. Both a scientific and financial fraud.

This challenge is archived, with the current page saying you followed an imaginary link. "If you can't win, burn the evidence of losing."

This challenge may be "possible", but don't waste time on it. You have better luck compleing the James Randi challenge instead.

Re:Clues of Life's Origins Found In Galactic Cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-07 17:47 · Score: 1 · on Clues of Life's Origins Found In Galactic Cloud

It isn't random, it's chemistry.

Re:Christians, physicians and hospitals by Kooglebot · 2013-02-13 07:17 · Score: 1 · on Missouri Legislation Redefines Science, Pushes Intelligent Design

From what I've heard from the ones I know, they still believe in the phenomenon of radioactivity, so that nuclear reactors and such work just fine. They just think that radiometric dating methods fail, because they think that the speed of light has changed over time.

Most of these people have heard most of the obvious objections to their crackpottery, and have put in a lot of time and effort to counter them. The BS they've come up with to support their beliefs can be quite elaborate, and it can actually take a lot of effort to debunk it.

Re:To Be Frank... by uncle+slacky · 2013-02-13 01:25 · Score: 1 · on Missouri Legislation Redefines Science, Pushes Intelligent Design

For evidence of "macro" evolution, see for example: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe and http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/.

Re:To Be Frank... by uncle+slacky · 2013-02-13 01:25 · Score: 1 · on Missouri Legislation Redefines Science, Pushes Intelligent Design

For evidence of "macro" evolution, see for example: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe and http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/.

Re:You have a logic problem by julesh · 2013-02-08 23:06 · Score: 1 · on Texas School Board Searching For Alternatives To Evolutionary Theory

There is no solid evidence to show that a species can evolve into a different species. We have seen no plants that evolved into something other than the same plant with some variation.

You need to learn to research before you make bold assertions like this. Here are some counterexamples. Here are some more. See also the wikipedia article, which may or may not use the same examples, as I haven't read it in depth.

Re:You have a logic problem by julesh · 2013-02-08 23:06 · Score: 1 · on Texas School Board Searching For Alternatives To Evolutionary Theory

There is no solid evidence to show that a species can evolve into a different species. We have seen no plants that evolved into something other than the same plant with some variation.

You need to learn to research before you make bold assertions like this. Here are some counterexamples. Here are some more. See also the wikipedia article, which may or may not use the same examples, as I haven't read it in depth.

Re:all sides by Epeeist · 2013-02-08 10:45 · Score: 1 · on Texas School Board Searching For Alternatives To Evolutionary Theory

Perhaps "all sides" means diligently pointing out flaws in the theory where behavior is observed but not adequately understood. Punctuated equilibrium, missing link, I'm looking at the two of you in particular.

Evolution is the only theory for how species came to be as they are which is both credible *and* scientific. But it isn't a very good theory. If it was a good theory then it would be *testable*. One could use it to make reliable predictions about generational change in short lived animals based on whatever the factors are that induce change.

Certainly Karl Popper didn't initially think that the theory of evolution was testable, but he later changed his mind:

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation...

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising...

1976. Unended Quest. An Intellectual Autobiography.

If you want more concrete examples of how the theory is both testable and falsifiable you could try these pages.

Re:Disagreement is only over the "soul" ... by Creedo · 2013-02-06 06:13 · Score: 1 · on Ask Dr. Robert Bakker About Dinosaurs and Merging Science and Religion

The existence of Y-chromosome Adam(or Mitochondrial Eve, for that matter) does not imply that there was a single individual who was the parent of all of humanity. This should be obvious simply from the time discrepency(20,000 years apart) and the fact that these people existed in the last 150,000 years. Our species is much older than that. And when these people lived, they were not alone. They were part of a population, not primordial parents.

Perhaps this will help you.

Re:Not only NASA. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-31 17:29 · Score: 0 · on NASA Faces Rough Road In 2013

You admit to being slightly higher than a layman and this may be the beginnings of shaking off the shackles of ignorance because your comment proves at best a layman's level of knowledge on the subject. Macroevolution has been observed many times; for your edification I suggest talk.origins as a starting point. Evolution is the sole organizing principle in biology, without which nothing makes any sense. It is the inescapable conclusion of 200 years of scientific research.

And if you really want to boil your noodle start looking into virtual particles and the Casimir effect. Even nothing is more than nothing in this wonderful, strange, and beautiful universe of ours.

Re:Really? by Man+Eating+Duck · 2012-12-13 04:51 · Score: 1 · on Atheist Blogger Sentenced To 3 Years in Prison For Insulting Islam

It may not, but Creationists arrive at that number by doing scientific experiments.

No, they don't, they get that number from doctrine, and then set out to discredit almost every branch of science in order to "support" their delusion. They do this by saying "naaa, naaa, scientists are wrong" and then concluding that this automatically means that some god did it practically yesterday, which is of course a false dichotomy even if the scientists were wrong. Even worse is the argument "Scientists don't agree between themselves, therefore some god".