Originally Posted by woot (Post 135658)

That's why I'm trying to educate schmucks like you. :)

But seriously, we do actually "know" a lot. We know that the earth is really, really old, and that life is the result of the natural selection of beneficial mutations in individual organisms. We know that the earth is an oblate spheroid (as opposed to flat or any other shape), and that continents move very slowly through the mechanisms described by plate tectonics. And on and on.

What we don't know is the exact time when humans split from chimps on the evolutionary tree (or more accurately, the evolutionary bush). We have various methods that all independently put it somewhere around 5-7 million years ago, but we don't know. Even if we did find an actual fossil from the first individual of the clade leading to Homo sapiens, there wouldn't be a good way to actually know that we did. We have specimens from that time period, so for all we know we found it already.

Here's the bottom line: When the anti-science crowd emphasizes such obviously trivial facts and uses them to try to discredit all of science, it's dishonest, intellectually bankrupt, and annoying.

Yes, there are scientists that are a little bit too willing to draw strong conclusions. They are in the minority, and do not discredit the mechanisms of science. A proper understanding of what the scientific method is, even in a vacuum, should be enough to conclude that if done right, science is the only way to truly learn anything.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 135671)

That sounds like a reason to embrace religion. It finds it's version of the truth and stops looking.

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug (Post 135675)

I think Mormonism keeps looking. That's why we have revelation.

Originally Posted by creekster (Post 135672)

Relax, friend. Check my posts, you will see that no one, not even your buddy Soonercoug, has pitched more on behalf of science and evolution than me. Even so, Tooblue's point in THIS thread is not invalid and it is simply not dishonest nor is it intellectually bankrupt. You may find it annoying (although I find it hard to believe you have been here long enough to for this to be true of Tooblue or me), but to try to shout him down because of what you think he means as opposed to what he says is, I am sure you would agree, not a healthy approach to learning or to dialog.

Besides, in your response you answered several arguments, but none of them had been made by me. For example, you will look in vain to find anywhere, and I mean anywhere in any thread, where I have suggested that evolution is not supported by ample evidence. Moreover, despite what Tooblue may or may not believe, in this thread he doens't say anything about evolution, per se, so why are you so eager to beat this drum? If you want to have a good discussion, it is always useful to actually talk about the same thing, eh?

Originally Posted by woot (Post 135679)

Most of my comments were directed at him, not you. Also, I would prefer that you not use the phrase "shout him down," as it implies I'm trying to censor him or something. I obviously enjoy debating. I don't think I was beating any drum. I was using evolution as an example of something that we absolutely know, and the topic of the article as a piece of trivia that doesn't affect much.

Originally Posted by creekster (Post 135656)

In fact, Tooblue's point is that "scientists" who claimed they "know" the age of fossils have in fact really engaged in a form of belief, relying on the accuracy of the methods available to them which can change and then the state of their "knowledge" changes. So for your average schmuck like me, it is just a belief. I think this position is well-supported by his posted links and by the reality of a pursuit for knowledge, even one rigorously based on the scientific method.

Originally Posted by creekster (Post 135656)

In fact, Tooblue's point is that "scientists" who claimed they "know" the age of fossils have in fact really engaged in a form of belief, relying on the accuracy of the methods available to them which can change and then the state of their "knowledge" changes. So for your average schmuck like me, it is just a belief. I think this position is well-supported by his posted links and by the reality of a pursuit for knowledge, even one rigorously based on the scientific method.

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 135671)

That sounds like a reason to embrace religion. It finds it's version of the truth and stops looking.

Originally Posted by non sequitur (Post 135684)

At least with science there is a method. Perhaps what the scientists should do is pray about the age of the earth, and then when they get a peaceful feeling they can declare that they've had a spiritual witness and that they can then unequivocally state the true age of the earth.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte (Post 135686)

You missed my sarcasm. I explained byself better in my reply to creekster. But I'll put it even more directly. Science isn't ashamed of changing its conclusions. It's what science is all about, what science does, for crying out loud. But it doesn't mean science is all bullshit, as tooblue seems to believe. Science would cease to be science if it ever announced it had all the answers, and definitively so. It would have become religion.