| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
07 Mar 2006 11:59:09 PM |
| Object: |
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom
A new poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe public school
teachers should present both the evidence for and against Darwinian
evolution.
The Zogby International survey indicated only 21 percent think biology
teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific
evidence that supports it.
A majority of Americans from every sub-group were at least twice as
likely to prefer this approach to science education, the Zogby study showed.
About 88 percent of Americans 18-29 years old were in support, along
with 73 percent of Republicans and 74 percent of independent voters.
Others who strongly support teaching the strengths and weaknesses of
evolutionary theory include African-Americans (69 percent), 35-54 year-olds
(70 percent) and Democrats (60 percent).
Casey Luskin, program officer for public policy and legal affairs with
Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture said while his group
does not favor mandating the teaching of intelligent design, "we do think it
is constitutional for teachers to discuss it precisely because the theory is
based upon scientific evidence not religious premises."
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the
theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in
federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes.
Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and
related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are
best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an
undirected process such as natural selection.
"The public strongly agrees that students should be permitted to learn
about such evidence," Luskin said.
The Discovery Institute noted Americans also support students learning
about evidence for intelligent design alongside evolution in biology class -
77 percent.
Just over half - 51 percent - agree strongly with that. Only 19
percent disagree.
--
" The truth shall set you free "
.
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 01:54:08 PM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:120ttl43a0k689a@corp.supernews.com...
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:Z1vPf.1545$sL2.1427@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
J Young wrote:
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in
classroom
Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans think McDonald's
is good food, too.
There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural selection. "Creation
science" isn't a theory at all; it's purely religious dogma.
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably be
better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Newton was also an alchemist. Want to bring that back into
the classroom, moron? Hey, turning lead into gold would
really help the economy, so why not?
Alchemy is broader than that yo-yo:
"a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve
the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal
cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging
life"
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 02:48:34 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:120ttl43a0k689a@corp.supernews.com...
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:Z1vPf.1545$sL2.1427@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
J Young wrote:
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in
classroom
Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans think McDonald's
is good food, too.
There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural selection. "Creation
science" isn't a theory at all; it's purely religious dogma.
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably be
better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Newton was also an alchemist. Want to bring that back into
the classroom, moron? Hey, turning lead into gold would
really help the economy, so why not?
Alchemy is broader than that yo-yo:
I know, moron. But since Newton practiced it, shouldn't
it be taught using your "reasoning"?
"a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve
the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal
cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging
life"
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 01:58:38 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:120ttl43a0k689a@corp.supernews.com...
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:Z1vPf.1545$sL2.1427@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
J Young wrote:
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in
classroom
Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans think McDonald's
is good food, too.
There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural selection. "Creation
science" isn't a theory at all; it's purely religious dogma.
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably be
better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Newton was also an alchemist. Want to bring that back into
the classroom, moron? Hey, turning lead into gold would
really help the economy, so why not?
Alchemy is broader than that yo-yo:
"a medieval chemical science and speculative philosophy aiming to achieve
the transmutation of the base metals into gold, the discovery of a universal
cure for disease, and the discovery of a means of indefinitely prolonging
life"
That's lovely.
Now, back to your lie. Newton was not an advocate of
"creation science".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 04:26:46 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote in
news:120ttl43a0k689a@corp.supernews.com:
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:Z1vPf.1545$sL2.1427@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
J Young wrote:
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in
classroom
Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans think
McDonald's is good food, too.
There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural selection.
"Creation science" isn't a theory at all; it's purely religious dogma.
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied
to the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably
be better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Newton was also an alchemist. Want to bring that back into
the classroom, moron? Hey, turning lead into gold would
really help the economy, so why not?
Newton was also an Arian. I.e he didn't believe in the trinity or the
divinity of Christ so Bam might want to be a bit more careful in choosing
his heroes.
Klazmon.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 09:30:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:22:12 -0000, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com>
wrote:
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably be
better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.
And where did Malthus describe the mechanisms that drive evolution?
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Newton was also an alchemist. Want to bring that back into
the classroom, moron? Hey, turning lead into gold would
really help the economy, so why not?
It's a standard fundy dishonesty. Newton was _not_ a creationist, that
is a modern phenomenon. He was a Christian product of his times, with
the integrity to revise his beliefs in the light of what he
discovered.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 01:55:55 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cvtt0258rbj28an0dia5esh92rt56nt4ge@4ax.com...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:22:12 -0000, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com>
wrote:
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied
to
the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably be
better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.
And where did Malthus describe the mechanisms that drive evolution?
He didn't ***** face. His ideas were copped by Darwin, like I said. And
besides, there are no mechanisms that drive evolution you putz.
BAM
It's a standard fundy dishonesty. Newton was _not_ a creationist, that
is a modern phenomenon.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Right. Men just started believing in God a
few years ago. You dope.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 01:59:12 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cvtt0258rbj28an0dia5esh92rt56nt4ge@4ax.com...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:22:12 -0000, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com>
wrote:
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied
to
the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably be
better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.
And where did Malthus describe the mechanisms that drive evolution?
He didn't ***** face. His ideas were copped by Darwin, like I said. And
besides, there are no mechanisms that drive evolution you putz.
BAM
It's a standard fundy dishonesty. Newton was _not_ a creationist, that
is a modern phenomenon.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Right. Men just started believing in God a
few years ago. You dope.
Newton was not an advocate of "creation science".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 10:26:09 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:22:12 -0000, Brian Westley <westley@visi.com>
wrote:
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> writes:
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world. Credit for the evolution theory would probably be
better attributed to Malthus than Darwin.
And where did Malthus describe the mechanisms that drive evolution?
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Newton was also an alchemist. Want to bring that back into
the classroom, moron? Hey, turning lead into gold would
really help the economy, so why not?
It's a standard fundy dishonesty. Newton was _not_ a creationist, that
is a modern phenomenon. He was a Christian product of his times, with
the integrity to revise his beliefs in the light of what he
discovered.
Thanks for the clarification. I rather doubted Newton
was an advocate of anything resembling what modern
fundie christians call "creation science". I think the
way the dissembling fundie wrote the reference above
indicates it's just a standard totem for them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 10:26:24 AM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:IXAPf.7$S8.1@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:Z1vPf.1545$sL2.1427@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
J Young wrote:
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
Why should educators listen to the ignorant in deciding science
curricula? Since when are any scientific issues decided by popular
vote? If Flat-Earthism becomes popular again, should classroom
globes be banned, or flat versions be given equal time?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in
classroom
When someone comes up with an alternative scientific theory that
fits the scientific evidence as well as does evolutionary theory,
then they can talk.
Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans think McDonald's
is good food, too.
There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural selection. "Creation
science" isn't a theory at all; it's purely religious dogma.
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world.
No, it isn't. It's much the same principle as selective breeding by
crop and animal breeders, with the influence of the natural
environment in place of the breeder's choices.
Credit for the evolution theory would probably be better attributed to
Malthus than Darwin.
The theory that living things have evolved is older than both. Darwin
just hit on the major mechanism for adaptive change, and came up with
a long convincing argument for it, with lots of supporting evidence.
But modern evolutionary science has come an enormously long way from
Darwin's strong beginning.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
[But it's perhaps telling that anti-evolutionists still seem
so fixated on the 19th century.]
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Hint: What year did Newton die? What year was "The Origin of Species"
published?
Newton never heard of Darwinian evolution, nor did he ever hear of
the modern religious heresy called "creation science". "Creation
science" is not science of any kind, and it's arguably also a
debasement of religion.
Speaking of which, do you also endorse Newton's other views?
Most Christians would consider him a heretic. [Look up "Arianism".]
He was also deeply into alchemy and other occult notions. Perhaps
you'd endorse him as an authority on these matters as well?
http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/OTHERREFERENCE/BIOGRAPHY/Newtonian.html
http://unfailinglove.org/science_religion/socinianism.htm
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 10:43:49 AM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:IXAPf.7$S8.1@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:Z1vPf.1545$sL2.1427@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
J Young wrote:
The people have spoken. When will the politicians and the courts ever
listen?
Why should educators listen to the ignorant in deciding science
curricula? Since when are any scientific issues decided by popular
vote? If Flat-Earthism becomes popular again, should classroom
globes be banned, or flat versions be given equal time?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in
classroom
When someone comes up with an alternative scientific theory that
fits the scientific evidence as well as does evolutionary theory,
then they can talk.
Not impressive. The overwhelming majority of Americans think McDonald's
is good food, too.
There *are* no alternatives to theories of natural selection. "Creation
science" isn't a theory at all; it's purely religious dogma.
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied to
the biological world.
No, it isn't. It's much the same principle as selective breeding by
crop and animal breeders, with the influence of the natural
environment in place of the breeder's choices.
Credit for the evolution theory would probably be better attributed to
Malthus than Darwin.
The theory that living things have evolved is older than both. Darwin
just hit on the major mechanism for adaptive change, and came up with
a long convincing argument for it, with lots of supporting evidence.
But modern evolutionary science has come an enormously long way from
Darwin's strong beginning.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
[But it's perhaps telling that anti-evolutionists still seem
so fixated on the 19th century.]
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Hint: What year did Newton die? What year was "The Origin of Species"
published?
Newton never heard of Darwinian evolution, nor did he ever hear of
the modern religious heresy called "creation science". "Creation
science" is not science of any kind, and it's arguably also a
debasement of religion.
Speaking of which, do you also endorse Newton's other views?
Most Christians would consider him a heretic. [Look up "Arianism".]
He was also deeply into alchemy and other occult notions. Perhaps
you'd endorse him as an authority on these matters as well?
http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/OTHERREFERENCE/BIOGRAPHY/Newtonian.html
http://unfailinglove.org/science_religion/socinianism.htm
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 02:13:53 PM |
|
|
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied
to the biological world.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is.
Credit for the evolution theory would probably be better attributed to
Malthus than Darwin.
The theory that living things have evolved is older than both. Darwin
just hit on the major mechanism for adaptive change, and came up with
a long convincing argument for it, with lots of supporting evidence.
But modern evolutionary science has come an enormously long way from
Darwin's strong beginning.
What are you trying to prove? That Darwin was a plagiarist? That's OK with
me - do your thing. But it's off topic - I was speaking of natural selection
which I believe is a subset of the evolution theory.
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Hint: What year did Newton die? What year was "The Origin of Species"
published?
Relevance? Are you saying that Newton would have become a Darwinist if he'd
read Origin of the Species? What kind of ***** are you?
Newton never heard of Darwinian evolution, nor did he ever hear of
the modern religious heresy called "creation science". "Creation
science" is not science of any kind, and it's arguably also a
debasement of religion.
I don't give a hoot about creation science. I'm saying that Evolution is a
fraud.
Speaking of which, do you also endorse Newton's other views?
You mean like gravity? Yup. Inertia? Yup. Momentum? Yup.
Most Christians would consider him a heretic. [Look up "Arianism".]
He was also deeply into alchemy and other occult notions. Perhaps
you'd endorse him as an authority on these matters as well?
He was an experimenter; an explorer - he went down roads in the hopes of new
discoveries. He also spent his last 20 years trying to predict the end of
the world from scripture.
Just give me a simple textbook on Evolution that is fit for use in the
classrooms, and I'll go away.
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with proofs.
Should be simple - see ya in a bit.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 04:29:01 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:eTGPf.223$S8.189@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
Natural selection is early 19th century laissez faire economics applied
to the biological world.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is.
'Tisn't. But the economic laissez faire-ists did try to claim it,
with their "Social Darwinism" nonsense. Regardless of whether or
not parallels can be drawn with economics, natural selection is
just a phenomenon that actually exists in the natural biological
world.
Credit for the evolution theory would probably be better attributed to
Malthus than Darwin.
The theory that living things have evolved is older than both. Darwin
just hit on the major mechanism for adaptive change, and came up with
a long convincing argument for it, with lots of supporting evidence.
But modern evolutionary science has come an enormously long way from
Darwin's strong beginning.
What are you trying to prove? That Darwin was a plagiarist?
Nope, but he built on the pre-existing scientific body of
understanding, as real science always does. As Newton did, for that
matter.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html
That's OK with me - do your thing. But it's off topic - I was speaking of
natural selection which I believe is a subset of the evolution theory.
And so it is indeed a subset. It's the part that explains the origin
of adaptive, functional features of organisms. There is however a lot
more to evolutionary biology than just natural selection theory.
Regarding creation science, Isaac Newton disagrees with you.
Hint: What year did Newton die? What year was "The Origin of Species"
published?
Relevance? Are you saying that Newton would have become a Darwinist if
he'd read Origin of the Species?
Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. He was generally a rather bright
guy, so it may well be likely he would have immediately become an
enthusiastic supporter [especially if we're talking about a
hypothetical 19th century version of Newton, not the 15th-16th
century chap]. No one will ever know, unless you're into seances.
What kind of ***** are you?
The kind who understands a whole lot more about evolution than
you, presumably.
Newton never heard of Darwinian evolution, nor did he ever hear of
the modern religious heresy called "creation science". "Creation
science" is not science of any kind, and it's arguably also a
debasement of religion.
I don't give a hoot about creation science.
Then why did you falsely imply above that Newton supported
"creation science"?
I'm saying that Evolution is a fraud.
Then you're wrong about that. But perhaps you have some idiosyncratic
definition of "Evolution" or of "fraud". Evolution as defined by
scientists is commonly and readily observed to actually occur, whether
or not the explanations for why and how it happens are completely
acceptable to you.
Speaking of which, do you also endorse Newton's other views?
You mean like gravity? Yup. Inertia? Yup. Momentum? Yup.
Things like his "heretical" rejection of the Trinity and the
divinity of Jesus, and his reported bitter hatred of Catholicism?
Most Christians would consider him a heretic. [Look up "Arianism".]
He was also deeply into alchemy and other occult notions. Perhaps
you'd endorse him as an authority on these matters as well?
He was an experimenter; an explorer - he went down roads in the hopes of
new discoveries. He also spent his last 20 years trying to predict the end
of the world from scripture.
Yep. Wacky stuff, but perhaps a fitting product of his times and his
own unique mindset. It's surprising that modern religious cult types
haven't adopted his year-2060-end-of-the-world stuff as a potential
goldmine for kooks to exploit.
Or have they? At least I hadn't heard of it, but
http://www.google.com/search?q=2060+%22isaac+newton
seems to find a number of pages of hits to scroll through.
Just give me a simple textbook on Evolution that is fit for use in the
classrooms, and I'll go away.
There are doubtless lots of such, but the better ones that come to
mind are more suited for college classes than for elementary or high
schools. Here's a couple:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0878931899/102-2764769-2029750?n=283155
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1405103450/103-9226985-2795045?n=283155
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Should be simple - see ya in a bit.
Besides textbooks, there are nice introductions on the web [with
numerous citations of such books and other relevant scientific
literature
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
There are also relevant books online, such as this for educators:
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/contents.html
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 07:21:13 PM |
|
|
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0878931899/102-2764769-2029750?n=283155
Reviewer: Grazyna K. Pomianowski - See all my reviews
Being a Molecular Biology major, I decided to try out an Evolutionary
Biology course. I came across the text book of Futuyma and I regret it. This
text was very poorly written and my T.A.'s, as well as professors, always
had to correct student's interpretation of what the book was trying to
convey. In my opinion, for every 10 pages read, only one paragraph was
coherent and useful. From my experience, including many others, this book
was horrible and was sold quickly after the semester of Evolutionary Biology
was done.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1405103450/103-9226985-2795045?n=283155
Technical evolutionary biology, May 4, 2004
Reviewer: A reader
"The neo-darwinian evolutionary synthesis has been called a genetic
takeover. This book testifies to the truth of this dictum. Genes are of the
utmost importance. EVOLUTION is not so much about evolution as teaching
theoretical evolutionary biology without much feeling for practical
evolutionary research or the natural world. As an introductory textbook,
Ridley's book will succeed in making students avoid evolutionary biology, as
a subject full of theoretical debates with little biological sense."
I understand they're teaching Evolution in high school. Are these the
textbooks that they use?
Ridley's also palsy-walsy with Dawkins so I know where he's coming from.
Have you read (senior paleontologist at the British Museum) Colin
Patterson's talk at the Museum of Natural History? He said that he'd been
studying Evolution for 20 years, woke up one day and realized he didn't know
one true thing about it.
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence. Ask yourself why (honestly) you are such a skeptic over
everything else in creation EXCEPT Evolution.
BAM
begin 666 c7y_badge_rn_1.gif
M1TE&.#EA1@`/`)$``/___P`SF69F9F^,Q2'Y! $`````+ ````!&``\```)R
MA(^IR^T/HYP4B7--!KOCKX&<Z(7F6*7JRK;N"T=#, \;$N3!H>^&SFOX`$/@
M+T@TC@:S1?&(0PX5.>@SB24J!@`NEZH,]Z!.K:]W-O^JDS29["YGK_04W7AG
:1ZU2J3(&&"@X2%B84H*2B+A(TGC"B% ``#L`
`
end
begin 666 stars-2-0.gif
M1TE&.#EA0 `,`+,/`..5%<G(J_[]_:V:8[&SB\>D;.?EV-C9Q:IW)KB&-?;U
M\.;8PO:]2/#MX\^RA?___R'Y! $```\`+ ````! ``P```3_\,E)5:#8+#R-
MX9)@*.!SD&4J&4@#-L-0!@2:$1\'NVJI% @':(%(\"@-V@&D%'!H`5L/B0`D
MG$A'`B#$! *'"R89/H9JM>E#L!@@W@E&HI@8S(L,`'U Z.,4?H$#!P(T@00#
M`86!A"D"!5L`#'D`5G8%DI.5"0D$B@*@H =^#:&@@'VEIH"*/855FGH;,%N:
M1: TJHLN!@2$H+U+P:$-OEBN`9&570]ME9L\%K\6.0]@H=<2!R>BC6H_5E56
M$\Y%5AL/#0>]-6 38 >#VR@!!O'K46H/"G,%"FX)0@0HLF!@@BZC?+%;LB9
MHB2I)/2)XBF-&A9=!#AHL0\2CP4)*PI(<)@#%8E>K4P,^, *2SPSCC10$#$K
6Y8H-"@R8$<&KFK:3!HX]T"E40@0`.P``
`
end
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
10 Mar 2006 02:36:09 PM |
|
|
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:7nLPf.344$8a7.295@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0878931899/102-2764769-2029750?n=283155
Reviewer: Grazyna K. Pomianowski - See all my reviews
Being a Molecular Biology major, I decided to try out an Evolutionary
Biology course. I came across the text book of Futuyma and I regret it.
This text was very poorly written
Or perhaps this one reviewer has severe problems with English
comprehension, compounded with an arrogant eagerness to shift the
blame to the book? I wonder if the review was intelligible before
Spellchecker?
and my T.A.'s,
We should always trust the judgement of people who use
apostrophes in plurals.
as well as professors, always had to correct student's interpretation of
what the book was trying to convey.
Which perhaps speaks ill of the alleged students' abilities,
not of the book's quality.
In my opinion, for every 10 pages read, only one paragraph was coherent
and useful. From my experience, including many others, this book was
horrible and was sold quickly after the semester of Evolutionary Biology
was done.
Which of course only tells us about her opinion.
And yet another reviewer said of the same book, on the same
Amazon web page:
"A textbook even a layman can love, July 26, 1998
[...[]
I'm not a biologist, or even studying biology, but I needed to find a
good introduction to evolutionary biology. This textbook was
recommended to me by several biologists, and I've found it to be both
chock-full of information and engagingly written. Even a layman such
as myself, with only a modest scientific background and whose last
biology course was way back in high school, could pick this textbook
up and follow along. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to know
what biologists mean when they talk about evolution."
So, why'd you choose to quote only the review at top, and not the one
immediately above, or any of the others on the Amazon link? You quoted
the _only_ negative [1-star] review, and ignored all of the 4 1/2 star
and 5-star ones [i.e., _all_ of the rest]. Are you that dishonest?
[So, what's the logical fallacy here? "Argumentum ad bad-review"? Why
would one whiny review trump the book's contents or invalidate its
subject matter?]
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1405103450/103-9226985-2795045?n=283155
Technical evolutionary biology, May 4, 2004
Reviewer: A reader
"The neo-darwinian evolutionary synthesis has been called a genetic
takeover. This book testifies to the truth of this dictum. Genes are of
the utmost importance. EVOLUTION is not so much about evolution as
teaching theoretical evolutionary biology without much feeling for
practical evolutionary research or the natural world. As an introductory
textbook, Ridley's book will succeed in making students avoid evolutionary
biology, as a subject full of theoretical debates with little biological
sense."
Again, you quote the _only_ negative [two-star out of five] review and
ignoring all of the rest. Are you perhaps trying to make yourself look
biased and dishonest?
I understand they're teaching Evolution in high school. Are these the
textbooks that they use?
Perhaps, if the high school is a very good one.
These are among the better college-level textbooks.
Ridley's also palsy-walsy with Dawkins so I know where he's coming from.
I seriously doubt you know anything at all relevant.
Have you read (senior paleontologist at the British Museum) Colin
Patterson's talk at the Museum of Natural History? He said that he'd been
studying Evolution for 20 years, woke up one day and realized he didn't
know one true thing about it.
No, he didn't. The Patterson quote is a notorious example of
creationist dishonesty and misrepresentation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/anti-darwin.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan98.html
By the way, Patterson wrote another one of the better introductory
texts on evolutionary biology:
_Evolution_ by Colin Patterson
Cornell University Press; 2nd edition
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801485940/qid=11167284/103-1530949-0749421?n=283155
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof.
No. There is no "proof" in natural science, just support by the
evidence. Evolution and common descent are very strongly supported
by all the available evidence, much as is the idea that germs can
cause disease, and the ones that atoms exist and that planetary
orbits are governed by gravity. None of them are "proven", just
supported by the evidence.
If there's no proof, there's not enough evidence. Ask yourself why
(honestly) you are such a skeptic over everything else in creation EXCEPT
Evolution.
"Evolution" is as about as well established a fact as anything else is
or can be in science. Better than many. We understand quite well how
evolution works and why it happens, which is more than can be said for
Newton's gravity.
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 08:31:15 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not
"proved".
Ask yourself why (honestly) you are such a skeptic over
everything else in creation EXCEPT Evolution.
The theory of evolution yields accurate predictions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 10:21:06 PM |
|
|
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory. I can't believe you
just gave me 90 yards.
Ask yourself why (honestly) you are such a skeptic over everything else
in creation EXCEPT Evolution.
The theory of evolution yields accurate predictions.
HA!!!!!!!!! Name one.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 10:29:22 PM |
|
|
bam (Junior) wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory.
False. Evolution is a *fact*, kid. Darwin's theory of
evolution - a theory of how evolution happens - is a
theory. Do you understand the difference, junior?
Evolution is a fact; Darwin's theory of evolution - one
of several - is a theory that attempts to explain the fact.
Got it? Junior?
Ask yourself why (honestly) you are such a skeptic over everything else
in creation EXCEPT Evolution.
The theory of evolution yields accurate predictions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 10:30:46 AM |
|
|
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:CaOPf.1768$k75.1065@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam (Junior) wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with
proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory.
False. Evolution is a *fact*, kid. Darwin's theory of evolution - a
theory of how evolution happens - is a theory. Do you understand the
difference, junior? Evolution is a fact; Darwin's theory of evolution -
one of several - is a theory that attempts to explain the fact.
Got it? Junior?
Go saw some more sawdust.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 12:28:19 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:CaOPf.1768$k75.1065@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam (Junior) wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with
proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory.
False. Evolution is a *fact*, kid. Darwin's theory of evolution - a
theory of how evolution happens - is a theory. Do you understand the
difference, junior? Evolution is a fact; Darwin's theory of evolution -
one of several - is a theory that attempts to explain the fact.
Got it? Junior?
Go saw some more sawdust.
Nice whiff-off, junior.
Restate: Evolution is a *fact*. Darwin's theory of
evolution attempts to explain that fact, and does so
fairly well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 06:02:16 PM |
|
|
"Leif Erikson" <jackball@phs.con> wrote
Restate: Evolution is a *fact*. Darwin's theory of evolution attempts to
explain that fact, and does so fairly well.
Evolution was known about for many years before Darwin. The observation was
extinct forms in the fossil record. The alternative theory, that all these
animals had been killed in the flood, had all sorts of problems with it.
Darwin's contribution was to propose natural selection as the mechanism for
evolution. The theory had a fundamental weakness, which was that positive
traits would get diluted away to nothing as animals interbred. This was
solved when Mendel's discovery that inheritance was particulate became
widely known.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eden" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 06:49:00 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <jackball@phs.con> wrote
Restate: Evolution is a *fact*. Darwin's theory of evolution attempts to
explain that fact, and does so fairly well.
Evolution was known about for many years before Darwin. The observation was
extinct forms in the fossil record.
That isn't in itself evidence for evolution; it's just
evidence of extinctions.
The alternative theory, that all these
animals had been killed in the flood, had all sorts of problems with it.
Darwin's contribution was to propose natural selection as the mechanism for
evolution. The theory had a fundamental weakness, which was that positive
traits would get diluted away to nothing as animals interbred. This was
solved when Mendel's discovery that inheritance was particulate became
widely known.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
08 Mar 2006 10:35:34 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory. I can't believe you
just gave me 90 yards.
Gravity is a theory, too, bam. But, it doesn't make it any less true.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and in every age, the priest *
* has been hostile to liberty. He is always in *
* alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in *
* return for protection to his own." *
* --Jefferson (in a letter to H. Spafford, 1814) *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 09:05:48 AM |
|
|
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> writes:
bam wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory. I can't believe you
just gave me 90 yards.
Gravity is a theory, too, bam. But, it doesn't make it any less true.
A bit more precisely: gravity is a fact; the various theories
proposed to describe and/or explain gravity are by their nature
provisional, and will always be provisional -- unless they
are proven inadequate, as Newton's theory of gravity has
been shown to be inadequate. Einstein's is holding up so far,
but is currently under intense scrutiny, primarily because of
the apparent acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe.
The parallels with the theories of evolution are obvious.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 09:13:21 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> writes:
bam wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory. I can't believe you
just gave me 90 yards.
Gravity is a theory, too, bam. But, it doesn't make it any less true.
A bit more precisely: gravity is a fact; the various theories
proposed to describe and/or explain gravity are by their nature
provisional, and will always be provisional -- unless they
are proven inadequate, as Newton's theory of gravity has
been shown to be inadequate. Einstein's is holding up so far,
but is currently under intense scrutiny, primarily because of
the apparent acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe.
The parallels with the theories of evolution are obvious.
Well, yes, but I was attempting to dumb it down for bam. I guess I
didn't do well enough. My apologies.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and in every age, the priest *
* has been hostile to liberty. He is always in *
* alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in *
* return for protection to his own." *
* --Jefferson (in a letter to H. Spafford, 1814) *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 10:33:10 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:4410470a$0$28294$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> writes:
bam wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with
proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's
not enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory. I can't believe
you just gave me 90 yards.
Gravity is a theory, too, bam. But, it doesn't make it any less true.
A bit more precisely: gravity is a fact; the various theories
proposed to describe and/or explain gravity are by their nature
provisional, and will always be provisional -- unless they
are proven inadequate, as Newton's theory of gravity has
been shown to be inadequate. Einstein's is holding up so far,
but is currently under intense scrutiny, primarily because of
the apparent acceleration of the rate of expansion of the universe.
The parallels with the theories of evolution are obvious.
Well, yes, but I was attempting to dumb it down for bam. I guess I didn't
do well enough. My apologies.
Lame duck.
BAM
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 10:31:53 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:440fb18b$0$20702$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
bam wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with
proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory. I can't believe you
just gave me 90 yards.
Gravity is a theory, too, bam. But, it doesn't make it any less true.
That's a laugher. I've never heard anyone use the phrase, "the theory of
gravity". Perhaps you should test this theory by jumping off a tall
building.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 08:27:22 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:440fb18b$0$20702$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
bam wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with
proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory. I can't believe you
just gave me 90 yards.
Gravity is a theory, too, bam. But, it doesn't make it any less true.
That's a laugher. I've never heard anyone use the phrase, "the theory of
gravity".
That's because it's called Gravitational Theory.
Perhaps you should test this theory by jumping off a tall
building.
You're assuming that calling something a "theory" means that it could be
untrue. You're confusing the word "theory" with "conjecture." Not to
worry; it's a common mistake.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "In every country and in every age, the priest *
* has been hostile to liberty. He is always in *
* alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in *
* return for protection to his own." *
* --Jefferson (in a letter to H. Spafford, 1814) *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Leif Erikson" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 12:29:28 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:440fb18b$0$20702$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
bam wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with
proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's not
enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory. I can't believe you
just gave me 90 yards.
Gravity is a theory, too, bam. But, it doesn't make it any less true.
That's a laugher. I've never heard anyone use the phrase, "the theory of
gravity". Perhaps you should test this theory by jumping off a tall
building.
Gravity is an observable phenomenon. We can measure
it. Newton had a theory of gravity; Einstein has a
somewhat different theory.
Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact. There are
various theories to explain both.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
09 Mar 2006 04:36:24 PM |
|
|
"Leif Erikson" <jackball@phs.con> wrote in message
news:cu_Pf.3230$Bj7.1029@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:440fb18b$0$20702$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
bam wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with
proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's
not enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory. I can't believe
you just gave me 90 yards.
Gravity is a theory, too, bam. But, it doesn't make it any less true.
That's a laugher. I've never heard anyone use the phrase, "the theory of
gravity". Perhaps you should test this theory by jumping off a tall
building.
Gravity is an observable phenomenon. We can measure it. Newton had a
theory of gravity; Einstein has a somewhat different theory.
Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact. There are various theories to
explain both.
Nobody says Evolution is a fact. Except an Evolutionazi.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll |
10 Mar 2006 06:24:56 PM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <jackball@phs.con> wrote in message
news:cu_Pf.3230$Bj7.1029@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:440fb18b$0$20702$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
bam wrote:
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TrMPf.1744$k75.905@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
bam wrote:
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote
This textbook would set out the tenets of evolution science with
proofs.
Science generally deals in "evidence", not "proofs" [apart from
strictly mathematical formulas]. Evolutionary science does have a
lot of both [hard evidence and theoretical math, the latter
especially with regard to population genetics theories].
Evidence is used to arrive at a proof. If there's no proof, there's
not enough evidence.
That's simply false. Scientific theories are not "proved".
At least you conced that Evolution is still a theory. I can't believe
you just gave me 90 yards.
Gravity is a theory, too, bam. But, it doesn't make it any less true.
That's a laugher. I've never heard anyone use the phrase, "the theory of
gravity". Perhaps you should test this theory by jumping off a tall
building.
Gravity is an observable phenomenon. We can measure it. Newton had a
theory of gravity; Einstein has a somewhat different theory.
Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact. There are various theories to
explain both.
Nobody says Evolution is a fact. Except an Evolutionazi.
Scientific evidence says it is a fact. Evolution has been documented
in the wild and in the laboratory. Only an educationally retarded
***** would find it questionable.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
