Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 28th Mar 2009 03:13 UTC
I had prepared myself to experience the world's best game. Judging by other people's reviews, Grand Theft Auto 4 was crafted in a special gaming studio in heaven, authored by Jesus Christ himself, and it descended upon us from the heavens on a golden chariot made out of chocolate covered in fairy dust. Imagine my surprise when I experienced the world's biggest turd in gaming since Davilex' A2 Racer (Dutch people will understand).
Thread beginning with comment 355857
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2005-07-06
But then, how much is there "really" of transitional fossils,
A significant number, actually - with the fossil record of cetaceans (whales and dolphins) being one of the most complete.
When it comes to the fossil record, how much fraud was presented as "proof" and by scientists? It's a very long list - Piltdown Man, Java Man, Lucy, Yale DNA, etc..
Of those examples, I'm only aware of one that actually was a fraud or hoax (Piltdown Man - although I'm admittedly not familiar with "Yale DNA"). "Java Man" is a nickname for the first specimen of Homo Erectus discovered, while "Lucy" is a specimen of Australopithecus afarensis.
Furthermore, who do you think discovered and exposed the Piltdown Man fraud? The answer is: scientists.
That's a key strength of science: it is ultimately self-correcting.
- yet, many will defend it, and even defended the cases of fraud until the "scientists" came out and admit the fraud.
I highly doubt that you can find any living, reputable archaeologist or paleo-anthropologist who would argue that Piltdown Man was genuine.
At times, and for some people, this segment of science called Evolution is almost a religion to them. And it's not going out on a limb to say that those that accept it 100% as it's described to them
True - although you can cherry-pick ignorant advocates of any idea (and if I wanted to be a jerk, I would counter by pointing out some of the exploits of people like Kent Hovind, William Dembski, or Michael Behe).
(including abiogenesis)
Which is clear evidence that those people are woefully-ignorant of the ideas they're advocating, since abiogenesis is a theory (or family of theories) about the origin of life. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, says nothing whatsoever about how life originated.
Member since:2005-07-24
although I'm admittedly not familiar with "Yale DNA"
He's probably talking about the Sibley-Ahlquist work on DNA-DNA Hybridization. All the items he mentions regularly make the rounds on conspiracy theorist sites, the stories and claims getting ever more fanciful as they pass from site to site. As these folks are *really* uncomfortable with the idea of our having DNA in common with other primates, let alone birds, "coverage" of the Sibley-Ahlquist work often receives a special dose of imagination.
Edited 2009-03-30 23:04 UTC
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-11-14
"It would, however, be very irrational to believe in a completely different theory, or in religious "teachings", without a body of supporting evidence which religions never seem to have. Just a bunch of unsupported claims, and some convenient excuses for why no hard evidence exists, and, of course, the occasional bit of anecdotal "proof" which often amounts to nothing more than an interesting coincidence experienced earlier in life.
Edit: I forgot to include the depressingly common "How dare you call my mother a liar!""
While many say that those of faith have the "convenient" excuse of explaining the unexplained as "God did it!", and such, being someone of faith isn't very convenient, and can be rather difficult at times - such as defending my views and beliefs on here.
As a Christian, I have no problem saying that Evolution could very well be real. It doesn't threaten my faith. But what I find most interesting (and at times, hypocritical) is those that have a "tunnel vision" and believe that only their beliefs could possibly be...well, possible. Take someone who is firmly in the camp of Evolution, and mention Intelligent Design to them. No, there is absolutely no proof that ID exists. But then, how much is there "really" of transitional fossils, abiogenesis, etc.. When it comes to the fossil record, how much fraud was presented as "proof" and by scientists? It's a very long list - Piltdown Man, Java Man, Lucy, Yale DNA, etc.. - yet, many will defend it, and even defended the cases of fraud until the "scientists" came out and admit the fraud. At times, and for some people, this segment of science called Evolution is almost a religion to them. And it's not going out on a limb to say that those that accept it 100% as it's described to them (including abiogenesis) require faith to believe in it. Yes, these theories are tested, and adjusted based on those results, but some of the things will never be proven most likely (abiogenesis) but are accepted as "fact" anyways.
Okay, you've got me. I have no idea where - "How dare you call my mother a liar!" - came from.