| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2005 07:54:14 PM |
| Object: |
A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
Hi all,
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is a fact and is true, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
1) They throw out insults.
2) They claim that I just don't understand science.
I am well educated in various branches of science.
They however, are not and it upsets them, that
the standard mantra and rhetoric doesn't work.
3) They repeat the claim that there is a "mountain
of evidence" for macroevolution and yet, still fail
to provide said proof.
4) They paste in web links and claim, "There is
your proof!". Yet, the link provides no such
thing and when I ask them to, in their own
words, discuss in detail how it is proof, the
silence is deafening.
5) They begin to insult religion and claim that
science has disproved our belief system. This
is done, after their repeated claim that science
has no interest in religion, nor in the supernatural.
6) They try to turn the tables, claiming that when
I respond to their positive claim that macroevolution
is a fact and is true, that it is up to me to disprove
their claim. In other words, they get to say whatever
they want we have to disprove it.
7) They seem to think that the lack of proof is proof.
It's a shame that the people don't know, that this
sort of nonsensical behavior would not be tolerated
in science. You claim macroevolution is science
and seem to think that providing zero proof, along
with insults, is proof.
Macroevolution is not science and associating with
science in a text book, or by speech, does not make
it science, any more than beer is athletic, simply
because it is sold at football games.
The fact is people, in no branch of science, is a
request for evidence met with insults and silence
regarding said proof. Only in evolution, do we
see this and that should tell us all we need to know.
If it were genuine science, the proof would have been
displayed for all to see and the opposition would have
been silenced, once and for all.
And while they try to blame religion for ignorance
of "real science", the fact is, that the inventor of
the scientific method was a Bible believing, six
day creationist and the inventors of many branches
of science were also. The greatest scientist who
ever existed, according to a poll of scientists, was
Sir Isaac Newton. He was a Bible believing, six day
creationist.
The fact is, that ignorance was found in atheistic
societies, who always tend to be far behind in
scientific advancement. It is the Christian nations
that brought science to where it is today and
the great learning institutions, such as Yale,
Harvard, etc., were established by Bible believing,
six day creationists, for the advancement of learning
and science. It is now, that they have become so
secularized, that the people are complaining about
how they have gone down in quality. Coincidence?
I think not.
And btw, don't ask me to prove any of this. By YOUR
OWN LOGIC, the burden of proof is on YOU.
I will show you what the greatest scientific
philosopher of all time said...
The greatest scientific philosopher of all time,
Dr. Karl Popper, said that evolution is not a law,
nor a theory and that it doesn't even rise to the
level of an hypothesis. He said it is nothing more
than a metaphysical research program.
So now I make a call to the evolutionists.
"Show me the money!"
Where is the proof of macroevolution?
And don't ask me about whether or not scientists
are lying, or to disprove it, or paste in web links,
etc., etc..
PROVE MACROEVOLUTION, OR HAVE THE
INTEGRITY TO ADMIT THAT YOU CAN'T!!!
And be ready to discuss, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,
HOW AND WHY what you provide proves what
you claim it does. Saying, "fossils prove it", is not
proof, unless you can show which exact fossils
and why and how they prove what you claim and
be able to respond to a rebuttal.
If you can't do that, then IT IS YOU who "DOESN'T
understand science".
Even Gould knew that the fossil evidence wasn't
there, to support a slow and gradual change and so,
he revived Goldschmidt's ridiculous and dead
"Hopeful Monsters" idea and repackaged it in
a toned down version, called, "Punctuated Equilibrium".
You have one camp of evolutionists who know that
slow and gradual macroevolutionary change did not
occur and another camp that knows that sudden
macroevolutionary changes did not occur. They
both disprove each other and yet, it never occurs
to them, that maybe they're both wrong. Maybe
neither happened.
So stop with the "what stops it from happening"
garbage and show the proof of macroevolution.
And don't bother me with the "science doesn't
work that way" garbage either. I know that, but
you don't, or you wouldn't be making the claims
you do. Thus, your approach is anti-science,
from go.
You claim it's true, without a doubt. This is
something that is not to be doubted and only
a fool would and so, it requires ABSOLUTE
PROOF THAT LEAVES ABSOLUTELY ZERO
ROOM FOR DOUBT!!!
So cough up the proof for macroevolution and
shut us all up. If you can, then I will throw my
Bible away and renounce my faith.
And don't tell me it has nothing to do with me
renouncing my faith, when we all know that you
spend your time trashing Christianity and claiming
that "the dead hand of religion" has hampered science.
So where is it? We're all waiting. And as I said,
make sure that you can back it up, with references
that you can defend, in detail, in your own words.
I will not entertain any sidetracking, nor any
questions. This is about answers. YOUR answers,
as evolutionists, PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT
that macroevolution is reality.
I am ready. Are you?
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 03:54:34 PM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2005 12:04:44 -0700,
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 11:33:17 -0700,
spake thusly:
Douglas W. Thomas wrote:
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize that as a
result
of the theory of evolution ( for example, supposing man evolved from apes),
that the rational conclusion would mandate that mankind has replaced apes
over time.
Of course, we observe to co-exist with apes.
I think you have an unreliable way of reaching your rational
conclusions.
There are certain things that maybe we 'replaced' in the sense of
extinguishing other biological options. The Neanderthals might have
been killed off (although it's also possible that interbreeding just
eroded the distinctions between them and, er.., 'us'). Various other
human-ish options have reached dead ends (assuming you don't believe
there are sasquatches hiding out in the hills). And then there's all
the large animals we're gradually killing off.
Evolution teaches that in "primates" larger brain size
equates to more intelligence. Therefore, since this
Neanderthal Man had a larger brain, it is also a
conclusion that should be made, that he was human
and smarter than us. Unless of course, one wishes
to still believe in the disproved fairy tale that he
was still evolving from ape and wasn't completely
upright, which of course, was later shown to be nothing
more than a severe case of arthritis in that find. And
fossils do not have fur, so any drawings, are pure
imagination. The reality is, that we could dress him
up and walk him down the streets of NYC and he'd
hardly rate a second glance. It is also fact, that
if humans were to live longer, their brows would
protrude more over time. Of course, the Bible says
that people used to live longer and the intentional
falsifying of the evidence, by forcing the jaw to be
displaced and then calling him an ape, was revealed
as well. Hey, if you don't believe the Bible, that's
your choice, but why not deal with the facts? Na,
that just wouldn't do! :)
Anyway, this is another discussion and I'm not going
to get sidetracked. :)
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
It's quite likely that Neanderthals were nice intelligent people with
whom one might get along, and that the home sapiens sapiens or whatever
were largely a bunch of short, nasty brutes. But I don't see your
point. Yes, maybe Neanderthals were killed off by the nasty brutes, or
maybe there was interbreeding and it was more of a 'merger' than an
extinction. So what? The point was that biologists aren't trying to say
that 'logically, we should have killed off every other ape-like or
human-like biological option', which is what the previous posting had
seemed to imply.
My point is, that man has always been man and the
evolutionists have never had a problem lying about that
and covering up evidence, as well as inventing it, for
their own purposes.
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 04:27:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:54:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 12:04:44 -0700,
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 11:33:17 -0700,
spake thusly:
Douglas W. Thomas wrote:
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize that as a
result
of the theory of evolution ( for example, supposing man evolved from apes),
that the rational conclusion would mandate that mankind has replaced apes
over time.
Of course, we observe to co-exist with apes.
I think you have an unreliable way of reaching your rational
conclusions.
There are certain things that maybe we 'replaced' in the sense of
extinguishing other biological options. The Neanderthals might have
been killed off (although it's also possible that interbreeding just
eroded the distinctions between them and, er.., 'us'). Various other
human-ish options have reached dead ends (assuming you don't believe
there are sasquatches hiding out in the hills). And then there's all
the large animals we're gradually killing off.
Evolution teaches that in "primates" larger brain size
equates to more intelligence. Therefore, since this
Neanderthal Man had a larger brain, it is also a
conclusion that should be made, that he was human
and smarter than us. Unless of course, one wishes
to still believe in the disproved fairy tale that he
was still evolving from ape and wasn't completely
upright, which of course, was later shown to be nothing
more than a severe case of arthritis in that find. And
fossils do not have fur, so any drawings, are pure
imagination. The reality is, that we could dress him
up and walk him down the streets of NYC and he'd
hardly rate a second glance. It is also fact, that
if humans were to live longer, their brows would
protrude more over time. Of course, the Bible says
that people used to live longer and the intentional
falsifying of the evidence, by forcing the jaw to be
displaced and then calling him an ape, was revealed
as well. Hey, if you don't believe the Bible, that's
your choice, but why not deal with the facts? Na,
that just wouldn't do! :)
Anyway, this is another discussion and I'm not going
to get sidetracked. :)
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
It's quite likely that Neanderthals were nice intelligent people with
whom one might get along, and that the home sapiens sapiens or whatever
were largely a bunch of short, nasty brutes. But I don't see your
point. Yes, maybe Neanderthals were killed off by the nasty brutes, or
maybe there was interbreeding and it was more of a 'merger' than an
extinction. So what? The point was that biologists aren't trying to say
that 'logically, we should have killed off every other ape-like or
human-like biological option', which is what the previous posting had
seemed to imply.
My point is, that man has always been man and the
evolutionists have never had a problem lying about that
and covering up evidence, as well as inventing it, for
their own purposes.
I don't suppose you'll be providing any sort of proof for that claim,
will you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
02 Sep 2005 03:44:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:27:58 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> spake thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:54:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 12:04:44 -0700,
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 11:33:17 -0700,
spake thusly:
Douglas W. Thomas wrote:
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize that as a
result
of the theory of evolution ( for example, supposing man evolved from apes),
that the rational conclusion would mandate that mankind has replaced apes
over time.
Of course, we observe to co-exist with apes.
I think you have an unreliable way of reaching your rational
conclusions.
There are certain things that maybe we 'replaced' in the sense of
extinguishing other biological options. The Neanderthals might have
been killed off (although it's also possible that interbreeding just
eroded the distinctions between them and, er.., 'us'). Various other
human-ish options have reached dead ends (assuming you don't believe
there are sasquatches hiding out in the hills). And then there's all
the large animals we're gradually killing off.
Evolution teaches that in "primates" larger brain size
equates to more intelligence. Therefore, since this
Neanderthal Man had a larger brain, it is also a
conclusion that should be made, that he was human
and smarter than us. Unless of course, one wishes
to still believe in the disproved fairy tale that he
was still evolving from ape and wasn't completely
upright, which of course, was later shown to be nothing
more than a severe case of arthritis in that find. And
fossils do not have fur, so any drawings, are pure
imagination. The reality is, that we could dress him
up and walk him down the streets of NYC and he'd
hardly rate a second glance. It is also fact, that
if humans were to live longer, their brows would
protrude more over time. Of course, the Bible says
that people used to live longer and the intentional
falsifying of the evidence, by forcing the jaw to be
displaced and then calling him an ape, was revealed
as well. Hey, if you don't believe the Bible, that's
your choice, but why not deal with the facts? Na,
that just wouldn't do! :)
Anyway, this is another discussion and I'm not going
to get sidetracked. :)
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
It's quite likely that Neanderthals were nice intelligent people with
whom one might get along, and that the home sapiens sapiens or whatever
were largely a bunch of short, nasty brutes. But I don't see your
point. Yes, maybe Neanderthals were killed off by the nasty brutes, or
maybe there was interbreeding and it was more of a 'merger' than an
extinction. So what? The point was that biologists aren't trying to say
that 'logically, we should have killed off every other ape-like or
human-like biological option', which is what the previous posting had
seemed to imply.
My point is, that man has always been man and the
evolutionists have never had a problem lying about that
and covering up evidence, as well as inventing it, for
their own purposes.
I don't suppose you'll be providing any sort of proof for that claim,
will you?
Sure I will! I will provide the same proof that you do
for your claim. Here it is...
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 05:18:46 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 12:04:44 -0700,
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 11:33:17 -0700,
spake thusly:
Douglas W. Thomas wrote:
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize that as a
result
of the theory of evolution ( for example, supposing man evolved from apes),
that the rational conclusion would mandate that mankind has replaced apes
over time.
Of course, we observe to co-exist with apes.
I think you have an unreliable way of reaching your rational
conclusions.
There are certain things that maybe we 'replaced' in the sense of
extinguishing other biological options. The Neanderthals might have
been killed off (although it's also possible that interbreeding just
eroded the distinctions between them and, er.., 'us'). Various other
human-ish options have reached dead ends (assuming you don't believe
there are sasquatches hiding out in the hills). And then there's all
the large animals we're gradually killing off.
Evolution teaches that in "primates" larger brain size
equates to more intelligence. Therefore, since this
Neanderthal Man had a larger brain, it is also a
conclusion that should be made, that he was human
and smarter than us. Unless of course, one wishes
to still believe in the disproved fairy tale that he
was still evolving from ape and wasn't completely
upright, which of course, was later shown to be nothing
more than a severe case of arthritis in that find. And
fossils do not have fur, so any drawings, are pure
imagination. The reality is, that we could dress him
up and walk him down the streets of NYC and he'd
hardly rate a second glance. It is also fact, that
if humans were to live longer, their brows would
protrude more over time. Of course, the Bible says
that people used to live longer and the intentional
falsifying of the evidence, by forcing the jaw to be
displaced and then calling him an ape, was revealed
as well. Hey, if you don't believe the Bible, that's
your choice, but why not deal with the facts? Na,
that just wouldn't do! :)
Anyway, this is another discussion and I'm not going
to get sidetracked. :)
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
It's quite likely that Neanderthals were nice intelligent people with
whom one might get along, and that the home sapiens sapiens or whatever
were largely a bunch of short, nasty brutes. But I don't see your
point. Yes, maybe Neanderthals were killed off by the nasty brutes, or
maybe there was interbreeding and it was more of a 'merger' than an
extinction. So what? The point was that biologists aren't trying to say
that 'logically, we should have killed off every other ape-like or
human-like biological option', which is what the previous posting had
seemed to imply.
My point is, that man has always been man a
===>Of course. Ever since he EVOLVED from the family
of ancestral apes. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION. |
01 Sep 2005 04:57:21 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 11:33:17 -0700,
spake thusly:
Douglas W. Thomas wrote:
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize that as a
result
of the theory of evolution ( for example, supposing man evolved from apes),
that the rational conclusion would mandate that mankind has replaced apes
over time.
Of course, we observe to co-exist with apes.
I think you have an unreliable way of reaching your rational
conclusions.
There are certain things that maybe we 'replaced' in the sense of
extinguishing other biological options. The Neanderthals might have
been killed off (although it's also possible that interbreeding just
eroded the distinctions between them and, er.., 'us'). Various other
human-ish options have reached dead ends (assuming you don't believe
there are sasquatches hiding out in the hills). And then there's all
the large animals we're gradually killing off.
Evolution teaches that in "primates" larger brain size
equates to more intelligence. Therefore, since this
Neanderthal Man had a larger brain, it is also a
conclusion that should be made, that he was human
and smarter than us. Unless of course, one wishes
to still believe in the disproved fairy tale that he
was still evolving from ape and wasn't completely
upright, which of course, was later shown to be nothing
more than a severe case of arthritis in that find. And
fossils do not have fur, so any drawings, are pure
imagination. The reality is, that we could dress him
up and walk him down the streets of NYC and he'd
hardly rate a second glance. It is also fact, that
if humans were to live longer, their brows would
protrude more over time.
===>That is just plain STUPID!
It is very easy to determine the age of those Neanderthal
remains, and NONE lived to be more than 30-40 years
MAX.
Of course, the Bible says
that people used to live longer
===>Of course the "Bible" also says that God was
mad because his sons liked human females and made babies
with them, then he decided to produce one with a betrothed
virgin in Galilee, thus making her commit adultery.
And, as the story goes, she was seduced with false promises
that her baby would become king of the Jews!
Well, the Romans never let him do that, but Christians
did make a God out of him.
So much for the fairy tales in the "Bible", which you prefer
over science, of which you are totally ignorant, as you are,
in fact, of the TRUE nature of the "Bible" as well. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
16 Sep 2005 07:18:29 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
Here's your proof of macroevolution, coward:
http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
But keep on killfiling those who show you up for the liar, fraud and
coward that you are.
Evolution teaches that in "primates" larger brain size
equates to more intelligence.
Lie. You cannot support this claim, and all it does is prove what an
ape you are when it comes to your transparently idiotic assertion that
you actually understand science.
Therefore, since this
Neanderthal Man had a larger brain, it is also a
conclusion that should be made, that he was human
and smarter than us.
Lie. You cannot support this claim, and all it does it prove what a
neanderthal you are when it comes to your transparently idiotic
assertion that you actually understand science.
Unless of course, one wishes
to still believe in the disproved fairy tale that he
was still evolving from ape and wasn't completely
upright, which of course, was later shown to be nothing
more than a severe case of arthritis in that find.
This is news?
And
fossils do not have fur, so any drawings, are pure
imagination.
Lie. Fur, skin, scales and feathers have been found.
The reality is, that we could dress him
up and walk him down the streets of NYC and he'd
hardly rate a second glance.
Lie.
It is also fact, that
if humans were to live longer, their brows would
protrude more over time.
Lie.
Of course, the Bible says
that people used to live longer and the intentional
falsifying of the evidence, by forcing the jaw to be
displaced and then calling him an ape, was revealed
as well.
Lie.
Hey, if you don't believe the Bible, that's
your choice, but why not deal with the facts? Na,
that just wouldn't do! :)
Anyway, this is another discussion and I'm not going
to get sidetracked.
No, you're going to be a limp Peter at the passion, as usual.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 03:25:09 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:11:07 -0600, in alt.atheism , "Douglas W.
Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> in
<0aSdnW7y_r3b2YreRVn-iQ@comcast.com> wrote:
[snip]
I think your response has a lot of merit, and from a logical standpoint I
would agree that the so called "proof" has been veiled in any number of
disguises.
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize that as a
result
of the theory of evolution ( for example, supposing man evolved from apes),
that the rational conclusion would mandate that mankind has replaced apes
over time.
Of course, we observe to co-exist with apes.
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize
that as a result of the theory of migration ( for example, supposing
Americans migrated from Europe), >that the rational conclusion would
mandate that Americans replaced Europeans over time. Of course, we
observe Americans to co-exist with Europeans.
As with any branch of science, there are always "exceptions to the rule".
Einstiens E=mcc appears to fail at the subatomic level. In electronics, a
capacitor
in a circuit defies the premise of Ohms law. And of course in medicine, not
any
particular prescription provides solution for all peoples.
The basic definition of a "Theory" is that of a statement that can neither
be proven nor disproven. Much the same as sprituiality.
The basic *scientific* definition of a theory is a public predictive
parsimonious model that explains observations. Such as the theories of
relativity and the theory of evolution. Neither of which are the
facts. The facts are explained by the theory.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 04:26:39 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:tnoeh11ircb1157ml6cbrsodmvg8ko2752@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:11:07 -0600, in alt.atheism , "Douglas W.
Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> in
<0aSdnW7y_r3b2YreRVn-iQ@comcast.com> wrote:
[snip]
I think your response has a lot of merit, and from a logical standpoint I
would agree that the so called "proof" has been veiled in any number of
disguises.
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize that as
a
result
of the theory of evolution ( for example, supposing man evolved from
apes),
that the rational conclusion would mandate that mankind has replaced apes
over time.
Of course, we observe to co-exist with apes.
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize
that as a result of the theory of migration ( for example, supposing
Americans migrated from Europe), >that the rational conclusion would
mandate that Americans replaced Europeans over time. Of course, we
observe Americans to co-exist with Europeans.
I would concur. Of course, there is no quantum leap that migration
is the impetus of ape evolving into man. Additionally, Im not
really knowledgable of a "Theory of Migration".
As with any branch of science, there are always "exceptions to the rule".
Einstiens E=mcc appears to fail at the subatomic level. In electronics, a
capacitor
in a circuit defies the premise of Ohms law. And of course in medicine,
not
any
particular prescription provides solution for all peoples.
The basic definition of a "Theory" is that of a statement that can neither
be proven nor disproven. Much the same as sprituiality.
The basic *scientific* definition of a theory is a public predictive
parsimonious model that explains observations. Such as the theories of
relativity and the theory of evolution. Neither of which are the
facts. The facts are explained by the theory.
Of course, when the predictive expectaion fails, then the theory
becomes limited in scope.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 10:04:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:26:39 -0600, in alt.atheism , "Douglas W.
Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> in
<E7qdnYNCsIWG74reRVn-2g@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:tnoeh11ircb1157ml6cbrsodmvg8ko2752@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:11:07 -0600, in alt.atheism , "Douglas W.
Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> in
<0aSdnW7y_r3b2YreRVn-iQ@comcast.com> wrote:
[snip]
I think your response has a lot of merit, and from a logical standpoint I
would agree that the so called "proof" has been veiled in any number of
disguises.
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize that as
a
result
of the theory of evolution ( for example, supposing man evolved from
apes),
that the rational conclusion would mandate that mankind has replaced apes
over time.
Of course, we observe to co-exist with apes.
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize
that as a result of the theory of migration ( for example, supposing
Americans migrated from Europe), >that the rational conclusion would
mandate that Americans replaced Europeans over time. Of course, we
observe Americans to co-exist with Europeans.
I would concur. Of course, there is no quantum leap that migration
is the impetus of ape evolving into man.
I can't figure that sentence out. No one has suggested that migration
was the "impetus" of (earlier) apes to man. And that "quantum leap"
does not seem to refer to anything.
Additionally, Im not
really knowledgable of a "Theory of Migration".
How about analogy? Do you understand what those are? You presented a
silly argument, I pointed out the error by use of an *analogy*. Humans
and chimps and gorillas evolved, not from some present day ape, but
from some common ancestor. All in that group are apes and we would
likely call that common ancestor an ape.
As with any branch of science, there are always "exceptions to the rule".
Einstiens E=mcc appears to fail at the subatomic level. In electronics, a
capacitor
in a circuit defies the premise of Ohms law. And of course in medicine,
not
any
particular prescription provides solution for all peoples.
The basic definition of a "Theory" is that of a statement that can neither
be proven nor disproven. Much the same as sprituiality.
The basic *scientific* definition of a theory is a public predictive
parsimonious model that explains observations. Such as the theories of
relativity and the theory of evolution. Neither of which are the
facts. The facts are explained by the theory.
Of course, when the predictive expectaion fails, then the theory
becomes limited in scope.
Or is rejected. The theory of evolution, however, works quite well in
its domain: explaining the (change in) diversity of life on Earth.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas W. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
02 Sep 2005 04:06:03 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:c3gfh1pkojuiilv9f8if69i4gorn7439li@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:26:39 -0600, in alt.atheism , "Douglas W.
Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> in
<E7qdnYNCsIWG74reRVn-2g@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:tnoeh11ircb1157ml6cbrsodmvg8ko2752@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 12:11:07 -0600, in alt.atheism , "Douglas W.
Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> in
<0aSdnW7y_r3b2YreRVn-iQ@comcast.com> wrote:
[snip]
I think your response has a lot of merit, and from a logical standpoint
I
would agree that the so called "proof" has been veiled in any number of
disguises.
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize that
as
a
result
of the theory of evolution ( for example, supposing man evolved from
apes),
that the rational conclusion would mandate that mankind has replaced
apes
over time.
Of course, we observe to co-exist with apes.
I find it quite astonishing that a lot of people fail to recognize
that as a result of the theory of migration ( for example, supposing
Americans migrated from Europe), >that the rational conclusion would
mandate that Americans replaced Europeans over time. Of course, we
observe Americans to co-exist with Europeans.
I would concur. Of course, there is no quantum leap that migration
is the impetus of ape evolving into man.
I can't figure that sentence out. No one has suggested that migration
was the "impetus" of (earlier) apes to man. And that "quantum leap"
does not seem to refer to anything.
Nor could I figure it out, mainly because migration from Europe
is non consequential to the discussion.
Additionally, Im not
really knowledgable of a "Theory of Migration".
How about analogy? Do you understand what those are? You presented a
silly argument, I pointed out the error by use of an *analogy*. Humans
and chimps and gorillas evolved, not from some present day ape, but
from some common ancestor. All in that group are apes and we would
likely call that common ancestor an ape.
Unfortunately, you quoted "Theory of Migration".
As with any branch of science, there are always "exceptions to the
rule".
Einstiens E=mcc appears to fail at the subatomic level. In electronics,
a
capacitor
in a circuit defies the premise of Ohms law. And of course in medicine,
not
any
particular prescription provides solution for all peoples.
The basic definition of a "Theory" is that of a statement that can
neither
be proven nor disproven. Much the same as sprituiality.
The basic *scientific* definition of a theory is a public predictive
parsimonious model that explains observations. Such as the theories of
relativity and the theory of evolution. Neither of which are the
facts. The facts are explained by the theory.
Actually, by definition, the facts must support the theory.
Of course, when the predictive expectaion fails, then the theory
becomes limited in scope.
Or is rejected. The theory of evolution, however, works quite well in
its domain: explaining the (change in) diversity of life on Earth.
In it's limited domain.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 11:37:03 AM |
|
|
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
People who claim that their opinions are "absolute truth" are a bit
boring. I suggest the next time you hear one of these opponents make
that claim, you tell them to grow up and leave the 19th century behind.
We can't get very far with 21st century goals by using a 19th century
vocabulary. That is not to say we can't make use of a 21st century
Christian vocabulary (even a creationist one) or certainly a 21st
century scientific vocabulary; of course we--or some of us--might find
a use for both.
But we all need to get past this idea that our own particular
vocabularies are pure Common Sense and that everybody else's are
universally useless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 01:21:10 PM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2005 09:37:03 -0700,
spake thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
People who claim that their opinions are "absolute truth" are a bit
boring.
And yet you do exactly that. Or are you saying that
maybe macroevolution didn't happen? It's one or
the other.
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 03:22:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:21:10 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<ijheh1di5e4rsf9vmbp91f697ote2891jv@4ax.com> wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 09:37:03 -0700,
spake thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
People who claim that their opinions are "absolute truth" are a bit
boring.
And yet you do exactly that. Or are you saying that
maybe macroevolution didn't happen? It's one or
the other.
It "maybe" didn't happen the same way "maybe" the Sun did not rise or
the Moon does not orbit the Earth. That is, we have observed it occur,
if that is not proof, then there is no proof. If you accept that is
proven that the Sun rose, then it is proven that macroevolution
occurs.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 03:53:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:22:03 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:21:10 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<ijheh1di5e4rsf9vmbp91f697ote2891jv@4ax.com> wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 09:37:03 -0700,
spake thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
People who claim that their opinions are "absolute truth" are a bit
boring.
And yet you do exactly that. Or are you saying that
maybe macroevolution didn't happen? It's one or
the other.
It "maybe" didn't happen the same way "maybe" the Sun did not rise or
the Moon does not orbit the Earth. That is, we have observed it occur,
if that is not proof, then there is no proof. If you accept that is
proven that the Sun rose, then it is proven that macroevolution
occurs.
Thank you for proving your hypocrisy and the immense
density of your skull.
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 06:17:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:53:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<dhqeh1hid5uqoqig08p1ggj6fi8jgdpca4@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:22:03 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:21:10 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<ijheh1di5e4rsf9vmbp91f697ote2891jv@4ax.com> wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 09:37:03 -0700,
spake thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
People who claim that their opinions are "absolute truth" are a bit
boring.
And yet you do exactly that. Or are you saying that
maybe macroevolution didn't happen? It's one or
the other.
It "maybe" didn't happen the same way "maybe" the Sun did not rise or
the Moon does not orbit the Earth. That is, we have observed it occur,
if that is not proof, then there is no proof. If you accept that is
proven that the Sun rose, then it is proven that macroevolution
occurs.
Thank you for proving your hypocrisy and the immense
density of your skull.
To paraphrase something I just read:
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is false, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
1) They throw out insults.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
02 Sep 2005 03:41:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:17:12 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:53:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<dhqeh1hid5uqoqig08p1ggj6fi8jgdpca4@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:22:03 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:21:10 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<ijheh1di5e4rsf9vmbp91f697ote2891jv@4ax.com> wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 09:37:03 -0700,
spake thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
People who claim that their opinions are "absolute truth" are a bit
boring.
And yet you do exactly that. Or are you saying that
maybe macroevolution didn't happen? It's one or
the other.
It "maybe" didn't happen the same way "maybe" the Sun did not rise or
the Moon does not orbit the Earth. That is, we have observed it occur,
if that is not proof, then there is no proof. If you accept that is
proven that the Sun rose, then it is proven that macroevolution
occurs.
Thank you for proving your hypocrisy and the immense
density of your skull.
To paraphrase something I just read:
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is false, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
1) They throw out insults.
Well of course and we know that you never do that.
And we should all know, that when a call for proof is
made, that it is up to the person who asked for proof
of the claim, to disprove it.
Hey, after all, how could anyone think that when
someone makes a claim that they should have
the burden of proof? After all, we both know that you
have never said, "Prove God exists"., Of course not!
You have always disproved the claim and have never
said such a silly thing! So why should anyone say to
you, "Prove that what you claim is true, is true".
That would be outrageous and ridiculous!
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
02 Sep 2005 07:52:11 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:41:51 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<hr3gh19fse3uofsi8tg5v2rbe6spjppuge@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:17:12 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:53:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<dhqeh1hid5uqoqig08p1ggj6fi8jgdpca4@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:22:03 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:21:10 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<ijheh1di5e4rsf9vmbp91f697ote2891jv@4ax.com> wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 09:37:03 -0700,
spake thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
People who claim that their opinions are "absolute truth" are a bit
boring.
And yet you do exactly that. Or are you saying that
maybe macroevolution didn't happen? It's one or
the other.
It "maybe" didn't happen the same way "maybe" the Sun did not rise or
the Moon does not orbit the Earth. That is, we have observed it occur,
if that is not proof, then there is no proof. If you accept that is
proven that the Sun rose, then it is proven that macroevolution
occurs.
Thank you for proving your hypocrisy and the immense
density of your skull.
To paraphrase something I just read:
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is false, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
1) They throw out insults.
Well of course and we know that you never do that.
I certainly do it, but not every time. You did, though, start out
complaining about insults, then you started using them. There is a
passage in a book somewhere, something about motes and beams. I can't
quite remember how it goes, maybe you know.
And we should all know, that when a call for proof is
made, that it is up to the person who asked for proof
of the claim, to disprove it.
No, when a statement is made, it is the job of the person making the
assertion to defend the assertion.
Hey, after all, how could anyone think that when
someone makes a claim that they should have
the burden of proof? After all, we both know that you
have never said, "Prove God exists"., Of course not!
Correct, I have never said that. It is a silly request.
You have always disproved the claim and have never
said such a silly thing! So why should anyone say to
you, "Prove that what you claim is true, is true".
That would be outrageous and ridiculous!
An odd way to defend yourself from the hypocrisy of objecting to
insults and then making insults.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
02 Sep 2005 11:00:20 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:41:51 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<hr3gh19fse3uofsi8tg5v2rbe6spjppuge@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:17:12 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:53:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<dhqeh1hid5uqoqig08p1ggj6fi8jgdpca4@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 20:22:03 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:21:10 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<ijheh1di5e4rsf9vmbp91f697ote2891jv@4ax.com> wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 09:37:03 -0700,
spake thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
People who claim that their opinions are "absolute truth" are a bit
boring.
And yet you do exactly that. Or are you saying that
maybe macroevolution didn't happen? It's one or
the other.
It "maybe" didn't happen the same way "maybe" the Sun did not rise or
the Moon does not orbit the Earth. That is, we have observed it occur,
if that is not proof, then there is no proof. If you accept that is
proven that the Sun rose, then it is proven that macroevolution
occurs.
Thank you for proving your hypocrisy and the immense
density of your skull.
To paraphrase something I just read:
Each time I RESPOND to a claim by someone
that macroevolution is false, period,
they never seem to provide said proof. Rather...
1) They throw out insults.
Well of course and we know that you never do that.
I certainly do it, but not every time. You did, though, start out
complaining about insults, then you started using them. There is a
passage in a book somewhere, something about motes and beams. I can't
quite remember how it goes, maybe you know.
And we should all know, that when a call for proof is
made, that it is up to the person who asked for proof
of the claim, to disprove it.
No, when a statement is made, it is the job of the person making the
assertion to defend the assertion.
Hey, after all, how could anyone think that when
someone makes a claim that they should have
the burden of proof? After all, we both know that you
have never said, "Prove God exists"., Of course not!
Correct, I have never said that. It is a silly request.
You have always disproved the claim and have never
said such a silly thing! So why should anyone say to
you, "Prove that what you claim is true, is true".
That would be outrageous and ridiculous!
An odd way to defend yourself from the hypocrisy of objecting to
insults and then making insults.
An odd defense for an odd man, I suppose.
--
James B
aa #944
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 01:49:23 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 09:37:03 -0700,
spake thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
People who claim that their opinions are "absolute truth" are a bit
boring.
And yet you do exactly that. Or are you saying that
maybe macroevolution didn't happen? It's one or
the other.
No, I don't find the term 'absolute truth' very useful. Instead, I
claim that I find scientific explanations useful to predict various
things about my environment. I don't find them very useful while, say,
dealing with feelings of gratitude for life. I mean, of course you
could describe my gratitude in terms of various brain chemicals acting
in various ways, but it's a very long-winded and ineffective way to
describe 'spiritual' feelings on a day-to-day level. I would use a word
like "God" in describing my gratitude, but for the fact that the word
is so overburdened with different meanings and connotations that I
doubt anyone would understand what I meant.
Your challenge to me here assumes that I use the word 'truth' in the
same way that you do; my response is that you're using it in a way that
is very outdated, which is why you're picking argumentative battles
that were fought by theologians and philosophers over a century ago.
People who are still fighting that battle ought to at least look at
where the conversations have since led, and try to understand that many
21st-century thinkers talk in different, more fruitful ways. There has
been a whole decades-long tradition of linguistic philosophy since your
ways of talking were the standard; we pragmatists hope to promote a
kind of second Enlightenment, only most people haven't bothered to keep
up with the conversation post-1900 or so.
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 02:00:45 PM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2005 11:49:23 -0700,
spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 1 Sep 2005 09:37:03 -0700,
spake thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
People who claim that their opinions are "absolute truth" are a bit
boring.
And yet you do exactly that. Or are you saying that
maybe macroevolution didn't happen? It's one or
the other.
No, I don't find the term 'absolute truth' very useful. Instead, I
claim that I find scientific explanations useful to predict various
things about my environment.
I sent this to you incorrectly. See my retraction.
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 01:22:40 PM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2005 09:37:03 -0700,
spake thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
People who claim that their opinions are "absolute truth" are a bit
boring.
Sorry for the last comment. I thought you were
someone else. :)
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 01:09:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:23:28 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<u29eh1hqmf87896d8mld29vovvklhtvj51@4ax.com> wrote:
[snip]
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
Nope. I say that common descent is not more (but no less either)
absolute truth than the orbit of Pluto and the hot metallic core of
the Earth. Macroevolution is about as much truth as the orbit of the
Moon.
[snip]
I agree about what real science calls for, which is not
an absolute, unless we're calling it a "law of
science". The problem here, is that they DO call it
a law (most of the time theory, but we both know it
is often called "the law of evolution").
The theory of evolution (I don't know of the law of evolution) is as
much a theory, and as well supported, as the theories of relativity or
of Quantum Mechanics. Not an absolute truth at all, it is certainly
incomplete.
[snip]
And hey, if they have proof that we're all apes,
can't we lock our kids in cages when they're
bad and get away with it, without being arrested
for it? I mean, that's what you do with apes
when they're out of control, no? :)
Funny, I go the other way. Since we are apes we have to treat apes
better than we do. I suppose this says something about each of us.
These people like to tell whoever won't fall for their
web link pasting, that the person "just doesn't
understand science". That isn't true. I understand it
pretty well.
Define fact and theory as they are used in science.
[snip]
The response from them is always to disprove their
claim. Then, they claim that creationists have no
theory
Give us some creationist predictions and explain how you came up with
them.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 01:45:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:09:25 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:23:28 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<u29eh1hqmf87896d8mld29vovvklhtvj51@4ax.com> wrote:
[snip]
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
Nope. I say that common descent is not more (but no less either)
absolute truth than the orbit of Pluto and the hot metallic core of
the Earth. Macroevolution is about as much truth as the orbit of the
Moon.
Thus, you call it absolute truth.
Now where is the absolute proof?
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
01 Sep 2005 06:18:48 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:45:08 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<p0jeh1lcpr4edvr7k8n829ua41rqcfk3h8@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 18:09:25 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:23:28 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<u29eh1hqmf87896d8mld29vovvklhtvj51@4ax.com> wrote:
[snip]
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
Nope. I say that common descent is not more (but no less either)
absolute truth than the orbit of Pluto and the hot metallic core of
the Earth. Macroevolution is about as much truth as the orbit of the
Moon.
Thus, you call it absolute truth.
No, I explicitly say that it is not absolutely proven.
Now where is the absolute proof?
You can find evidence for the common descent of all life on Earth by
comparing the morphology of living organism, by comparing the genetics
of all living things, but looking at the fossil record, and by looking
at biogeographic distribution.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
02 Sep 2005 03:43:50 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:18:48 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
Nope. I say that common descent is not more (but no less either)
absolute truth than the orbit of Pluto and the hot metallic core of
the Earth. Macroevolution is about as much truth as the orbit of the
Moon.
Thus, you call it absolute truth.
No, I explicitly say that it is not absolutely proven.
And so, what do you call those who say it didn't
happen?
--
Pastor Dave
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
http://tinyurl.com/ce97m
"The mark of a society that's on its last leg, is when
there is no fear of God." - Adrian Rogers
"Theology and ethics are inextricably bound together.
Yet under the supposed banner of unity, we have
harbored enemy ships - as long as they flew our flag.
That policy must change. Tolerating enemies of the
historic Christian faith as though they were our
brethren is not love, but adultery. The substance
of the faith is the only basis for unity."
- The Agony of Deceit, p23
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A CALL FOR PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION |
02 Sep 2005 07:53:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 08:43:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Pastor Dave
<news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> in
<l44gh19jfb7u6apteaurnus9dpq868bejo@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:18:48 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> spake
thusly:
The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
Nope. I say that common descent is not more (but no less either)
absolute truth than the orbit of Pluto and the hot metallic core of
the Earth. Macroevolution is about as much truth as the orbit of the
Moon.
Thus, you call it absolute truth.
No, I explicitly say that it is not absolutely proven.
And so, what do you call those who say it didn't
happen?
Wrong. Proof is not the standard, absolute proof is even sillier. I
can't absolutely prove that the American Civil War happened, but
anyone who denies it is wrong. Same for common descent. It is
supported by millions of pieces of evidence in four distinct lines,
but that is not absolute proof.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
| | | | | |
