Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did Monkeys get to South America?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 10 of 137 (499072)
02-16-2009 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Engineer
02-16-2009 7:14 AM


Quick question
Engineer, what is your view as to the age of the earth?
That might help in framing answers to your questions.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Engineer, posted 02-16-2009 7:14 AM Engineer has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 33 of 137 (499139)
02-16-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Engineer
02-16-2009 9:57 PM


Age of the earth
Back in message #10 I asked you for your estimate of the age of the earth.
You have tried to duck the question.
This is an important question for the current topic, as it directly impacts the path monkeys took to South America.
If you believe the age of the earth is ca. 6,000 years and that Noah's flood actually occurred, then there is no point in discussing science with you as your a priori belief has rendered science moot. Miracles can do anything, on demand. Scientific evidence doesn't count for squat.
However, if you accept the evidence for an old earth then perhaps we can continue to discuss the topic of New vs. Old World Monkeys using scientific evidence.
So which is it? Do you accept the scientific evidence for an old earth, or do you insist on believing in a young earth in spite of that evidence?
Or are you going to continue to ignore my question?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Engineer, posted 02-16-2009 9:57 PM Engineer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Engineer, posted 02-16-2009 10:23 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 49 of 137 (499165)
02-17-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Engineer
02-16-2009 10:51 PM


Re: Again I ask what is your alternative
that's why faith is the same, but science keeps changing.
Science is becoming increasingly accurate. It discards old mistakes when new data show that its necessary. But when it does it becomes more accurate, and more reflective of the data--all the data.
Creationism can't change because it is based on revelation of some kind, not data. In fact, it has to ignore any data that disagrees with that revelation. In doing so it is the exact opposite of science.
That's why you have problems with monkeys getting to South America; you are looking for some way to ignore scientific evidence and stick to your religious belief. You are most likely trying fit the spread of New World monkeys from the Old World into the post-flood period, which occurred some 4,350 years ago according to biblical scholars. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for that either.
Believe what you want, but don't try to pretend its science. It is not.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Engineer, posted 02-16-2009 10:51 PM Engineer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Engineer, posted 02-17-2009 12:10 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 58 of 137 (499175)
02-17-2009 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Engineer
02-17-2009 12:10 AM


Re: Again I ask what is your alternative
quote:
Science is becoming increasingly accurate. It discards old mistakes when new data show that its necessary. But when it does it becomes more accurate, and more reflective of the data--all the data.
I wouldn't have a job without science.
but 200 years from now, how much of the new stuff do you think will still be used?
We laugh at people for thinking the world was flat and that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, but this changes.
Because science is becoming increasingly accurate, and changing in the process, you prefer to stick to 3,000 year old myths just because they don't change?
Fine, but don't mistake what you are doing for science. It is the exact opposite of science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Engineer, posted 02-17-2009 12:10 AM Engineer has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 137 of 137 (499828)
02-20-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by RAZD
02-20-2009 9:16 PM


Re: Rafting
Primates generally and monkeys in particular are social animals, traveling in troops, sharing resources.
Thus it is likely that if ONE primate S.American monkey ancestor reached the "new" world, then it is likely that several did.
There has not been one piece of evidence that shows that such an event was impossible.
The presence of New World monkeys shows that some form of communication occurred between the Old and New worlds. The exact method is not even that important (except as the topic of this thread, of course).
To repeat: The presence of New World monkeys shows that some form of communication occurred between the Old and New worlds.
If creationists want to overturn this fact (as fact it is) they will have to overturn a lot of other scientific facts as well, starting with the documented common ancestor between Old and New world monkeys.
But all we see are claims, without supporting evidence. That's not going to overturn any observed facts. All the "what ifs" they can come up with are not worth a single verifiable observation--and science is based on verifiable observations. Making such observations, and then explaining them, is what science does!
But creation "science" is designed to cast doubt on scientific findings, by any means necessary, when those findings contradict, or fail to support, religious beliefs.
We often see creationists changing the meaning of terms or complaining about the scientific method--all in an effort to include scripture or "divine" revelation as scientific evidence so that their particular beliefs are supported by "science," when now they are not.
Summary: The exact method by which New World monkeys got to the New World is not critical to science. Without supporting evidence, the "what ifs" of creationists are not even of much interest to science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2009 9:16 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024