Do living dinosaurs disprove evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Areopagite
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It means that it seems very irrational of you to be so invested into the idea that dinosaurs have roamed this earth anytime within the last 60 million years.
I’m not even saying I believe it. All I’m arguing is that it’s possible … and that such a thing doesn’t pose a problem for evolution.
This isn’t a question about God, its a question of nature. True, Spinoza and Taoists find the two mutually inclusive, but your looking for… what are you looking for? perhaps you should be clear with your motivations.
I’m sorry if I haven’t been clear:

My motivation here is to stop Creationists and Evolutionists from bickering over a particular issue namely: recently living dinosaurs. Creationists claim that recent dinosaurs would disprove evolution and bring up a lot of archeological evidence to argue for their existence. Evolutionists, in response, instead of saying that recently living dinosaurs actually pose no threat to the theory of evolution, instead attack the archeological evidence seemingly a priori, appearing that they have an obligation to because they think evolution is more likely to be correct than the idea that ancient art really did depict living dinosaurs … even though, my claim, is that the two don’t contradict each other. If evolutionists were more vocal on the fact that recently living dinosaurs are no threat to evolution, then the Creationists will stop using that particular line of argument, and things would be a lot less annoying.
Living Dinosaurs wouldn’t pose a threat to Evolutionists, but it would leave every single one of us scratching are heads because it wouldn’t add up.
Maybe. I’m sure they’d figure it out.👍
 
I’m not even saying I believe it. All I’m arguing is that it’s possible … and that such a thing doesn’t pose a problem for evolution.:
Ah, but it threatens the Darwinian orthodoxy, doesn’t it? One of the things that makes me most skeptical of evolutionary theory is this dogged tunnel vision that the Darwinian model of the ‘tree of life’ is absolutely correct, and that any deviation from it is subjected to a scientific inquisition, with the sentence being the heretics career :rolleyes:
 
Ah, but it threatens the Darwinian orthodoxy, doesn’t it? One of the things that makes me most skeptical of evolutionary theory is this dogged tunnel vision that the Darwinian model of the ‘tree of life’ is absolutely correct, and that any deviation from it is subjected to a scientific inquisition, with the sentence being the heretics career :rolleyes:
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. What is Darwininan orthodoxy? From what I’ve gathered through the years, there is no such thing. No scientist agrees completely with what everything Darwin said … that is why most scientists subscribe to a “Neo-Darwinism.” But once again, that is extrinsic to the theory of evolution. No?

But please enlighten me what “Darwinian Orthodoxy” is, if such a thing exists.
 
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. What is Darwininan orthodoxy? From what I’ve gathered through the years, there is no such thing. No scientist agrees completely with what everything Darwin said … that is why most scientists subscribe to a “Neo-Darwinism.” But once again, that is extrinsic to the theory of evolution. No?

But please enlighten me what “Darwinian Orthodoxy” is, if such a thing exists.
‘Darwinian orthodoxy’ is a concept invented by creationists and ID’ers who want to conflate science with religion. The reason any new discovery is subjected to rigorous scientific investigation is precisely because there is no ‘orthodoxy’ - no doctrine, no dogma, just a collection of evidence and explanations linking the evidence. It is of the utmost importance to test any additional information, because if verified, it may alter the current theory, either by adding more information, solving a previously insoluble problem, presenting new possibilities or even derailing the theory entirely. Science is open to the latter, which is the primary characteristic distinguishing it from religious orthodoxy.
 
I agree, Sair. And what you describe is part of a larger phenomenon. The religionist mentality which attempts to conflate science and emotionalized opinion hears its echo in similar apples and oranges attempts in nearly every area of human experience. The fundamental difficulty is the human propensity for belief itself. This propensity for belief is to some extent necessary in that it serves infants, toddlers, and children as far as surviving their parents until that wonderful time of teenage rebellion, which in fact is the time of claiming one’s autonomy as best one can. Unfortunately, most educational systems stemming from agrarian/hunter-gatherer cultures somewhat modified by industrialization, are not invested in more than cursory skills aimed at minimal economic competence, save for a few. The educational system is now even less accommodating of our age where the means of production has transited from machinery to information, especially that surrounding financial instruments.

What I am saying is that we humans in general are the living mental dinosaurs in an age that ought to be populated by masses who have achieved great wisdom, particularly in matters pertinent to psycho-spiritual development. And yet, our major religions, particularly the Abrahamic religions, are anchored in distortions of actual Ways of Knowledge to the point that those distortions have become prophylactic against the very object of their alleged intent. The entire serio-comic debate surrounding evolution is evidence of that.

Such a debate is never going to serve as other than a distractive bonfire until the participants in it grow up to the point where they understand the intrinsic root of both forms of the Golden Rule and the actual reason for the two Great Commandments attributed to Jesus. And that needs to happen in the scientific community as well as the religious, remembering that each is founded on very different ways of dealing with information, each of which needs clarification and respect, and which though relative, have their own provinces, the mixture of which wreaks havoc.

So the debate here might very much and very far more usefully be about the role of critical thinking in both provinces, but especially in religion, and the general growth and maturity of the human population in self-knowledge transferable to the battered scene of world relations. Given that the very structure of most languages, particularly English, is unaccommodating of some fundamental spiritual subtleties, and that most cultures today are fundamentally adversarial even within themselves, never mind toward each other, there may not be much hope for that.

Despite faith in a second coming, a vastly and tragically misunderstood concept, no one said that the human experiment has to work out with success for the species. In fact it is evident that we are by light years more interested in and working for the comfort of a few of our race, the about 5% that own more than half of world wealth,* than we are in the survival of the planetary population and is habitation. We are making ourselves the dinosaurs by not growing beyond the lizard part of our own brains when we have had all along the means of incorporation and transcendence into a heaven on Earth, had we wanted it. As it is, we don’t even see the tools in our hands that could precipitate that very desirable end.
Code:
* UN stats, as seen on  [www.miniature-earth.com](www.miniature-earth.com) & dynamics of which on [www.storyofstuff.com](www.storyofstuff.com) and [www.howtoboilafrog.com](www.howtoboilafrog.com)
 
‘Darwinian orthodoxy’ is a concept invented by creationists and ID’ers who want to conflate science with religion. The reason any new discovery is subjected to rigorous scientific investigation is precisely because there is no ‘orthodoxy’ - no doctrine, no dogma, just a collection of evidence and explanations linking the evidence. It is of the utmost importance to test any additional information, because if verified, it may alter the current theory, either by adding more information, solving a previously insoluble problem, presenting new possibilities or even derailing the theory entirely. Science is open to the latter, which is the primary characteristic distinguishing it from religious orthodoxy.
What you have written here, I view as the ideal, with which I have no argument.

What some of us are saying, is that there appears to be individual evolutionists who do hold high a “Darwinian banner”, and embarrass academics by exercising a religious devotion to uniformtarianism.

Also, there’s emails going around that some Climate Change scientists have with held or lied about evidence contradicting claims of global warming. Those scientists certainly haven’t lived up to your ideal.
 
Actually, it is well accepted now that those e-mails simply considered factors surrounding warming in their political, not scientific, regards. No one of those scientists nor their critics deny or assert other than that there is global warming. On hearing even an interview of a well known German scientist who published a paper about a leveling off of warming, it was discovered that he regarded himself as “Mr. Global Warming,” saying that what the plateau is is in fact a temporary adjustive pause in the clearly continuing process.

The wonderful part, for developers, about disputing warming and diminishing renewable resources, is that the doubts cast by them in the minds of the uninformed and ignorant cause a delays in any real addressing of the problems, thus gaining economic benefits for those profiting from warming and surrounding issues. A good example is that as reported in the Oakland Tribune and later other papers, the one man during the latter Bush administration who had, and liberally used, censorship privileges on scientific papers regarding warming and resources, was a former Exxon executive, to which job he returned when his activities were exposed. What expertise or interest do you believe he might have regarding these issues?

The so called “controversy” in these issues is in fact a delaying action on the part of economic interests. Those delays may cost your children more than you care to even remotely consider.

Have you watched those three videos I recommended?
 
I agree, Sair. And what you describe is part of a larger phenomenon. The religionist mentality which attempts to conflate science and emotionalized opinion hears its echo in similar apples and oranges attempts in nearly every area of human experience. The fundamental difficulty is the human propensity for belief itself. This propensity for belief is to some extent necessary in that it serves infants, toddlers, and children as far as surviving their parents until that wonderful time of teenage rebellion, which in fact is the time of claiming one’s autonomy as best one can. Unfortunately, most educational systems stemming from agrarian/hunter-gatherer cultures somewhat modified by industrialization, are not invested in more than cursory skills aimed at minimal economic competence, save for a few. The educational system is now even less accommodating of our age where the means of production has transited from machinery to information, especially that surrounding financial instruments.

What I am saying is that we humans in general are the living mental dinosaurs in an age that ought to be populated by masses who have achieved great wisdom, particularly in matters pertinent to psycho-spiritual development. And yet, our major religions, particularly the Abrahamic religions, are anchored in distortions of actual Ways of Knowledge to the point that those distortions have become prophylactic against the very object of their alleged intent. The entire serio-comic debate surrounding evolution is evidence of that.

Such a debate is never going to serve as other than a distractive bonfire until the participants in it grow up to the point where they understand the intrinsic root of both forms of the Golden Rule and the actual reason for the two Great Commandments attributed to Jesus. And that needs to happen in the scientific community as well as the religious, remembering that each is founded on very different ways of dealing with information, each of which needs clarification and respect, and which though relative, have their own provinces, the mixture of which wreaks havoc.

So the debate here might very much and very far more usefully be about the role of critical thinking in both provinces, but especially in religion, and the general growth and maturity of the human population in self-knowledge transferable to the battered scene of world relations. Given that the very structure of most languages, particularly English, is unaccommodating of some fundamental spiritual subtleties, and that most cultures today are fundamentally adversarial even within themselves, never mind toward each other, there may not be much hope for that.

Despite faith in a second coming, a vastly and tragically misunderstood concept, no one said that the human experiment has to work out with success for the species. In fact it is evident that we are by light years more interested in and working for the comfort of a few of our race, the about 5% that own more than half of world wealth,* than we are in the survival of the planetary population and is habitation. We are making ourselves the dinosaurs by not growing beyond the lizard part of our own brains when we have had all along the means of incorporation and transcendence into a heaven on Earth, had we wanted it. As it is, we don’t even see the tools in our hands that could precipitate that very desirable end.
Code:
* UN stats, as seen on  [www.miniature-earth.com](www.miniature-earth.com) & dynamics of which on [www.storyofstuff.com](www.storyofstuff.com) and [www.howtoboilafrog.com](www.howtoboilafrog.com)
Well, I’ve known fierce born-again Christians, “Living Marxist” types, neo-pagans, and Dawkinsian atheists, and all of them have done naught but display the kind of blind dogmatic faith that scares me.

With regard to the Dawkinsian atheists, it’s blind faith in the the exclusory authority of the scientific method. As far as I can see, the dogmatic, fanatical belief in ideology driven, pseudo-proven scientific “truths” is the biggest threat to freedom I face today, and which continues to drive us into a new dark age where free thought which refutes this orthodoxy is as carefully denied expression and value as in any other self-righteous, bigoted, ideology driven culture
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top