Museum exhibit to show dinosaurs and man co-existing

[look_ninjas]

I have to say that I am shocked, shocked at the amount of ignorance on display in this thread. What the hell is a T. Rex going to do with a flaming sword? He’s got those wussy little hands! Even if he managed to hold onto the sword, it’s not like he could swing it.

Now if Marc Bolan had the sword…

[Little_Plastic_Ninja]

@Sample_the_Dog

I wonder which of the 2 creation stories from Genesis 1-2 Mr. Ham subscribes to…

It always makes me think of this:

@Terry Pratchett

        The crumbling scrolls of Knot said that the great orange sun was eaten every evening by the sky goddess, What, who saved one pip in time to grow a fresh sun for next morning. And Dios knew that this was so.

        The Book of Staying in The Pit said that the sun was the Eye of Yay, toiling across the sky each day in His endless search for his toenails.* (* Lit. 'Dhar-ret-kar-mon', or 'clipping of the foot'. But some scholars say that it should be 'Dar-rhet-kare-mhun'. lit. 'hot-air paint stripper'.) And Dios knew that this was so.

        The secret rituals of the Smoking Mirror held that the sun was in fact a round hole in the spinning blue soap bubble of the goddess Nesh, opening into the fiery real world beyond, and the stars were the holes that the rain comes through. And Dios knew that this, also, was so.

        Folk myth said the sun was a ball of fire which circled the world every day, and that the world itself was carried through the everlasting void on the back of an enormous turtle. And Dios also knew that this was so, although it gave him a bit of trouble.

        And Dios knew that Net was the Supreme God, and that Fon was the Supreme God, and so were Hast, Set, Bin, Sot, Ic, Dhek, and Ptooie; that Herpetine Triskeles alone ruled the world of the dead, and so did Syncope, and Silur the Catfish-Headed God, and Orexis-Nupt.

        Dios was maximum high priest to a national religion that had fermented and accreted and bubbled for more than seven thousand years and never threw a god away in case it turned out to be useful. He knew that a great many mutually-contradictory things were all true. If they were not, then ritual and belief were as nothing, and if they were nothing, then the world did not exist. As a result of this sort of thinking, the priests of the Djel could give mind room to a collection of ideas that would make even a quantum mechanic give in and hand back his toolbox.

[Liberal]

@Desmostylus

Sounds like complete bullshit to me.

Of course it does. Now, what test have you devised?

I should also point out that he made the initial statment in 1976, and the recantation in 1978. He was born in 1902, so he was like 76 when he recanted, but a sprightly 74 when he initially spouted off.

I’m afraid you’re confused again. Popper had a very long career in philosophy. 1976 was when his autobiography (Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography) was published, but he was always suspicious of natural selection theory because of its tautological nature.

[FinnAgain]

I’m kinda surprised… anybody who has ever experimented with E Coli or fruit flies has seen natural selection up close and personal, sometimes having the time to study dozens of generations.

The competing mathamatical models of natural selection are not, currently, able to be proven. But with enough data they are falsifiable. This doesn’t put them on the same level as fairy tales.

'Intelligent design" doesn’t even have the ability to be tested, ever. It’s fantasy, fiction.

[Fear_Itself]

@Liberal

Popper had a very long career in philosophy. 1976 was when his autobiography (Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography) was published, but he was always suspicious of natural selection theory because of its tautological nature.

But the important thing is that he recanted. It avails your argument nothing to quote beliefs that have been disavowed by the author.

[dropzone]

@Hunter Hawk

But a T-Rex with a flaming sword is waaaaaaay cooler.

Such willful ignorance on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance is appalling. Everybody knows that a T rex’s shoulder girdle is in no way designed to swing a flaming sword, and that’s if it could pick the sword up with its two fingers. Even working with both hands its lack of palms or opposable thumbs would mean it kept dropping the sword and the pointy German helmet would fall off every time it bent over to pick up its sword.

I can’t believe you people are so stupid that you think that spectacle would be menacing and not comical.

[mrklutz]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I think they should throw in a wax replica of the band, T-Rex. It would make as much sense as anything else in the exhibit.

Dammit, Dio. Now I’m going to be running around all day with an image of Marc Bolan with a flaming guitar (the ‘axe’ being mistranslated as ‘sword’, of course) and wearing a pointy German helmet, driving Adam and Eve out of Eden.

I need more coffee.

[tdn]

@Siege

I don’t know about the author of that article, but in York county, Pennsylvania, at the eastern end of the state, they are trying to require that a local school district teach Intelligent Design.

How is that even possible? Is there any substance yet to ID, other than “goddidit” or “evolution is evil”? The only thing I’ve ever heard about ID is that there must be some designer behind complex structures. It takes maybe 2 minutes to explain that. How can one create an entire curriculum out of that?

Along the same lines, how can teachers give “equal time” to creationism? Once again, the entire “theory” of creation can be summed up as “goddidit.”

[eleanorigby]

Why, I thnink we should be grateful to Mr. Ham! Here I always thought it was an angel of the Lord who chased that white trash outta Eden! And I thought the reason was for overreaching their bounds on the whole knowledge thingy!

Well, if all I hafta worry about is a T. Rex! Phew? And thank God, they’re extinct!

We are in honey, honey! Free and clear, and no holds barred…

(please note saracasm of above).

[Marley23]

@iampunha

To whom is the presentation being made? Nomads of 2K years ago or biology graduate students? Further, what facts supporting evolutionary theory were available 2K years ago?

What I was saying is this: if you’re omniscient and omnipotent and all that, why not give the ‘primitive’ people a story that is allegorical and answers their questions, but does not flatly contradict what you know humanity will find eventually out?

For the (fossil) record, I am and always have been a guy. Named for the reggae musician, not the Dickens ghost.

[El_Kabong]

'Intelligent design" doesn’t even have the ability to be tested, ever. It’s fantasy, fiction.

Actually, I’m trying to design some bacteria right now. It’s harder than I thought. I can’t seem to decide whether they look better with or without fins, and I’m really flummoxed over what width to make the racing stripes.

[Liberal]

@Fear Itself

But the important thing is that he recanted. It avails your argument nothing to quote beliefs that have been disavowed by the author.

No, the important thing is, as I explained, that he recanted by making natural selection an exception to his rigorous requirements for a scientific theory. An old man bowing to the pressue of his peers is merely pathetic. There is no test to determine whether natural selection is false. It will always be true because of how it is defined. That which survives is that which survives — it is a tautology.

[Liberal]

@FinnAgain

I’m kinda surprised… anybody who has ever experimented with E Coli or fruit flies has seen natural selection up close and personal, sometimes having the time to study dozens of generations.

The competing mathamatical models of natural selection are not, currently, able to be proven. But with enough data they are falsifiable. This doesn’t put them on the same level as fairy tales.

'Intelligent design" doesn’t even have the ability to be tested, ever. It’s fantasy, fiction.

How? How will you test natural selection with enough data? Observation is no test. The test is whether your hypothesis about what you observe can be proved false. How will you test that that which is best adapted is best adapted? It is like testing that a table is a table. There is no test you can devise to show that a table is not a table.

[elucidator]

@El_Kabong

Actually, I’m trying to design some bacteria right now. It’s harder than I thought. I can’t seem to decide whether they look better with or without fins, and I’m really flummoxed over what width to make the racing stripes.

Quit trying to distract us with bacteria. That simply isn’t germane.

[tdn]

@elucidator

Quit trying to distract us with bacteria. That simply isn’t germane.

Is it Tito?

[tnetennba]

The question is not if natural selection is falsifiable. The question is whether random variation and natural selection as an explanation for evolution as observed, which is falsifiable. You can suppose that environmental pressures, for example, do not adequately explain the evolution observed. You can also suppose that despite environmental changes, no evolutionary process is observed.

[MaxTheVool]

@Liberal

How? How will you test natural selection with enough data? Observation is no test. The test is whether your hypothesis about what you observe can be proved false. How will you test that that which is best adapted is best adapted? It is like testing that a table is a table. There is no test you can devise to show that a table is not a table.

So let me see if I’m understanding your characteristically cryptic statement. You’re saying that if a group of scientists with unlimited funds and lots and lots of time built an entire close skinnerian box, put an ecosystem in that box, then modified the environment in the box so that (say) creatures with longer legs would survive, and each generation, measured the length of the leg of every single creature, and saw which ones died, and which ones didn’t, and compared the actual results to statistical predictions based on evolutionary theory, and after hundreds of thousands of years, all the numbers matched up to what evolutionary theory predicted, and, sure enough, all the species of animals had evolved to have much longer legs… after that had happened, there would still be no way to prove that it wasn’t either purely random, or all the work of God?

Honestly, I’m not sure precisely what you’re saying. Can you spell it out in very short words, with (and this is VERY important) an extra statement as to whether it actually means anything or matters in any sense other than the totally abstract?

[tnetennba]

The question is whether random variation and natural selection as an explanation for evolution is falsifiable, and it is.

[Barbarian]

So Liberal, what are you saying? That you don’t like the way the theory of Natural Selection is phrased (ie. Creatures that survive are those best suited to their environment, and change over generations to better suit their environment) or that you don’t think it qualifies as an actual theory about how the universe works (as opposed to something like F=ma) or that you don’t think it actually happens?

[ElvisL1ves]

Earth to fundies: “The Flintstones” was not, repeat not, a documentary.

That is all.