On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:54:50 -0600, in alt.atheism , "Douglas W.
Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> in
<c6ydnZ2dnZ3IaIyvnZ2dnaiVit6dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@comcast.com> wrote:

[snip]

Actually, I am not, nor have I defended his spritual position (whatever
that
may be).
I do defend his point to case on the scientific matter of this thread.

The only scientific matter I can see in this thread is that PD asks
for an inappropriate standard, proof.


--
Matt Silberstein

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:54:50 -0600, in alt.atheism , "Douglas W.
Thomas" <douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> in
<c6ydnZ2dnZ3IaIyvnZ2dnaiVit6dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@comcast.com> wrote:

[snip]

Actually, I am not, nor have I defended his spritual position (whatever that
may be).
I do defend his point to case on the scientific matter of this thread.

The only scientific matter I can see in this thread is that PD asks
for an inappropriate standard, proof.

"Douglas W. Thomas" wrote:

"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:u29eh1hqmf87896d8mld29vovvklhtvj51@4ax.com...

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:29:44 -0600, "Douglas W. Thomas"
<douglas.w.thomas@NOSPAMcomcast.net> spake thusly:

<aminorflatfive@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1125542883.127423.85680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Because in this case, he is correct.

It's just not a very interesting point that he's making. Philosophers
have been hunting for an absolute truth for ages, from which we could
base everything else and end up with, ideally, an explanation of what
we ought to do and what we ought to be afraid of.

The idea that this hunt will be fruitful in terms of deciding, say,
whether to believe in evolution or not, is just an exhausted idea
that
we need to move on from. Let's grab the best tools we have and use
them
to achieve our goals, whether those are finding good ways to describe
funny-looking patterns in the rock, or to describe people from
different communities, or to achieve elements of a particular type of
utopia that appeals to us.

T

I do believe (and identify with) the matter of discussion hinders on
"proof". Every identifiable acedemic establishes it's own measure for
proof,
although, no proofing method renders 100% absolution. In the essence of
"proof", a hypothesis has to be supported with valid test/measurement
data
that is accepted by the associated academic community. Then the
community
may accept the hypothesis (establishing it as a theory), or, they may
reject
it.
Within every academic community, "proof" is a realy a matter of "degree
of
signifance". This measure varies from community to community. Normally,
natural sciences mandates a much more rigid degree of signifance than
does
a
social sciences. But, in all, none are rendered as absolution.

In the case of the referenced web page....it is presented as a "case".

Doug

I appreciate your honesty. I really do and whether
we agree on the matter of macroevolution or not
(I have not seen you state your personal position
on the subject), I do appreciate your honest and
objective approach to the matter. So given that
you are promoting honest thought and reason,
allow me to expound a bit on my position and I
welcome any comments you may have.

The problem here, is that they call it absolute truth.
They do this, by claiming that anyone who disagrees
is being foolish and isn't a "real scientist" and by
shunning them in the scientific community.

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 problem
here. is that this idea, which is all it is, does not
even rise to the level of hypothesis, yet it is claimed
to be true and don't you doubt it!

These kinds of shenanigans would not be tolerated
in any branch of true science, yet here it is, with
evolution.

I do not believe macroevolution to be science and
putting it in text books and associating it with
science, does not make it scientific, any more than
beer becomes athletic because it is sold at a football
game.

I call for absolute proof, because they claim it is
an absolute truth. Something real science would
never do, when there are no repeatable tests that
can be run, to demonstrate macroevolution. It is
all hyperbole and imagination. It is full of, "may
haves" and "might be's". No problem if you're
not claiming it is true beyond question. Science
should question and search. But they refuse to
question and search, as far as whether or not
macroevolution is valid. Science is full of questions
and yet, they don't want it to be questioned and
as you can see, they get very angry when you do.
Thus, the following quote is appropriate...

"If something in science suddenly becomes
so sacrosanct that you can't question it,
then it ceases to be science," he said.
"And I really think that's what's become
of Darwinism." - Roger DeHart

Since they do claim it is true beyond question,
I want proof that cannot be refuted, that proves
beyond any question, since they don't allow for
it to be questioned (as to the validity of the entire
idea of macroevolution), that it is absolutely true.
And I think that's only reasonable, given their
claims and attitudes toward macroevolution.

I mean, if you're going to teach my kids that
THEY'RE APES and it's a fact, shouldn't I
desire to see the proof of this claim? It is
my kids, after all, no?

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? :)

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. And I know that pasting web links and
then firing off insults, is not a scientific response
to someone who asks you to show, in detail, in your
own words, how and why that web link supports
your claim. This, in reality, shows that the person
who pasted the web link is the one who isn't ready to
discuss the issue and doesn't "understand science".
Especially when the web links do not provide proof.

The response from them is always to disprove their
claim. Then, they claim that creationists have no
theory and spend all of their time trying to disprove
evolution, when that is exactly what they asked for.
Then of course, they create web sites attacking
creationism, after claiming it isn't real science and
isn't worth bothering with. Huh???

It is a swirling pool of hypocrisy.

If they make a claim and you ask them to prove it,
they ask you "what would stop it". They claim that
you must disprove it.

If you make a claim, they demand you prove it and
claim you are running away if you demand that they
do as they always request and disprove your claim.

I look at it this way... If there is such proof, why
haven't they just whipped it out and shut us all
up? "Show me the money" and I'll convert! :)

Anyway... :)


--

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

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.

===>You, DOUGLAS, have replaced previously living THOMASES,
but that does not mean no more THOMASES can exist, or none
that can be genetically identified as your relatives, does it?
Homo Sapiens "replaced", i.e. descended from, previously living
apes. So did the other "great apes", who are 90%+ genetically
related to you! -- L.

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.

The explanations of puzzles offered by natural scientists and
biologists certainly aren't supposed to 'prove' that apes no longer
exist. It seems a funny line of logic you must be treading if you think
that's the sort of conclusion we ought to draw.

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.