uncadonego on 26/6/2009 at 15:39

---

So if a scientist's research ends up being covered in a PBS documentary it's no longer science? Besides that many scentists consider the wolf as part of a cross breeding that ended up producing domestic dogs.

Vivian on 26/6/2009 at 15:46

---

What the hell are you talking about? People made wolves by cross breeding dogs? Have you gone barking mad?

Ha. Anyway, having been involved in a few documentaries by now, I would say you can trust the average one only marginally more than someone in the pub who sounds like they know what they're talking about. Just stick 'dog origins' into google scholar and I challenge you to find any primary reference in the last ten years that doesn't call them a direct descendant of the gray wolf.

Vivian on 26/6/2009 at 15:58

---

Er, nice try (I guess), but no: forum chat is not a valid scientific reference either.

uncadonego on 26/6/2009 at 16:43

---

You know, you might get the impression from the way this conversation is going that I don't personally think dogs were bred from wolves, but I do. By quoting the both of you stating different opinions about the same subject wasn't to try to use heywood as a scientific reference. It's just to show you can't get anywhere in a thread around here. Even one of the links you used states: "Sequences from both dogs and wolves showed considerable diversity and supported the hypothesis that wolves were the ancestors of dogs." I don't need to not believe that dogs came from wolves to say that it's a hypothesis.
As long as I'm explaining, I said "many scentists consider the wolf as part of a cross breeding that ended up producing domestic dogs. " Not cross breeding dogs that ended up producing wolves.
The reason I keep not siding with either creationist or evolutionists in this thread isn't because I don't believe in God or don't believe that mammals are different in North America as opposed to Australia for a reason. The reason I am poking both sides is that the Creationist side, in my opinion tends to say, science is serving evil by merely reporting what it believes the evidence to be saying, and the sciencies, in my opinion, seem to always be saying, not all mind you, but a trend, say true science must equate with atheism.
It's like management and labour. Unions defend people who should just plain be fired, but humans seem to always entrench themselves in wildly opposing sides. If I remember right, one part of this thread way back referred to a Fundamentalist quote listing many scientists who believed in God, and someone actually said that the average high school kid knew more than all those scientists, but no one challenged that. Why not? Do you think that the average high school kid is smarter than Einstein, Newton, Kepler, Pasteur?
There are still people alive today that were taught the planets were swimming through the ether in science class. One person can boast, almost boastfully, about how we've already genetically modified crops. Google THAT, and you'll see plenty of controversy. Science can only at best be what we know up until now, or what we think we know, but we have to admit it will always change. Fundamentalists will go as far as saying (ok, SOME of them will say) that God put those dinosaur bones there to fool us! Well, if God put those bones there to fool us, maybe the world started yesterday! This forum, the archive, all the accumulated pollution, the Bible, all those graves, our collective memories, all just put there by God to fool us! Why not? If he's into fooling us, hey, might as well pull out all the stops!!
Either God was always there and created matter and energy, or matter and energy were always there, or they came out of nowhere on their own for no reason conceived by a conscious intellect. Choose your faith. Really, all three possibilities bend your brain, so pick one.

uncadonego on 26/6/2009 at 17:29

---

If you read the previous page you'd know the controversy I was referring to wasn't whether or not we've modified crops.

I agree that science should only be approached in intellectual fashion and results shouldn't change whether the researchers were Mormons or Hindu.
However, part of your answer, specifically " in the sense that we must treat the universe as if it adheres to inherent unchanging laws, rather than the arbitrary whims of a supreme being.", is part of what I'm talking about. It's an arbitrary assumption that the universe would be different whether or not there was a Creator. It's an assumption that it would act funky based on "arbitrary whims". If there is a Creator, the laws of the universe would be created and governed by Him. There's no reason to assume a Creator would destroy those laws on a whim. And if there is a Creator who had intellligent creatures in mind, destroying universal gravitation or something else we depend on would be contrary to His purpose in the first place.
Your right, none of that matters in studying the various disciplines of science. It is was it is. However, if there is a God, all creation IS evidence of His presence.
What I'm more referring to is the animosity religionists have toward anyone who questions them and vice versa in the scientific community. And it goes both ways. Archimedes (was it Archimedes) used the shadow stick trick at high noon so many miles away while there was no shadow right to the bottom of the well where he was. I think it was something like 500 miles and the shadow stick was 7 degrees, blabla bla, 360 degrees in a circle 7 into 360 times 500 and he came up with the circumference of the earth. That was B.C.E. Still 1492 people are still telling Colombus he's going to fall over the edge of the earth in their ignorance because of the brutal stifling influence of the Vatican. But then you read some other forums and some poor naive Kirk Cameron type wanders on to the thread asking some questions, and the science geeks just rip into him with a mean streak. Personally, I just can't see how the earth being a 4 billion year old rock should shake them up so bad, except maybe that their consciousness unnecessarily entwines the young earth belief with their belief in God, so that in their minds old earth would prove there's no God, therefore they will never accept it. The vitriol flies from both sides. That's why I said in my last post that I'm sort of tired of these types of threads, because it won't stop. Even consider the title. I'm sure that there are 6-dayers out there that are honest to goodness rocket scientists. Probably not many, but you know techinicians, programmers,etc. They walk among us!!! But the title "possibly the dumbest people in the world"
Man, I'd hate for some 6-dayer paramedic to have a condescending opionion toward me and ask me if I believe in the 6-day hellburner before he started working on my injuries at the scene of an accident. I've gone on long enough in this post for sure....