| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
17 Aug 2005 01:59:31 AM |
| Object: |
Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
Another good article by George Monbiot.
---
A Life With No Purpose
Darwinism implies that the only eternal life we have is in the recycling
of our atoms. I find that comforting
by George Monbiot
All is not lost in America. When George Bush came out a couple of weeks
ago in favour of teaching "intelligent design" - the new manifestation
of creationism - the press gave him a tremendous kicking. The Christian
Taliban have not yet won.
But they are gaining on us. So far there have been legislative attempts
in 13 states to have intelligent design added to the school curriculum.
In Kansas, Texas and Philadelphia, it already has a foot in the door. In
April a new "museum of earth history" opened in Arkansas, which
instructs visitors that "dinosaurs and humans did coexist", and that
juvenile dinosaurs, though God forgot to mention it, hitched a ride on
Noah's Ark. Similar museums are being built in Texas and Kentucky. Some
45% of Americans, according to a Gallup poll last year, believe that
"human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God ...
essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago".
And not just in America. Last month Vienna's Catholic archbishop,
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, asserted that "any system of thought that
denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in
biology is ideology, not science". He appears to have the support of the
Pope. Last week the Australian education minister, Brendan Nelson,
announced that "if schools also want to present students with
intelligent design, I don't have any difficulty with that". In the UK,
the headmaster of one of Tony Blair's new business-sponsored academies
claims that evolution is merely a "faith position".
The controversy fascinates me, partly because of its similarity to the
dispute about climate change. Like the climate-change deniers, advocates
of intelligent design cherry-pick the data that appears to support their
case. They ask for evidence, then ignore it when it's presented to them.
They invoke a conspiracy to explain the scientific consensus, and are
unembarrassed by their own scientific illiteracy. In an article
published in the American Chronicle on Friday, the journalist Thomas
Dawson asserted that "all of the vertebrate groups, from fish to
mammals, appear [in the fossil record] at one time", and that if
evolution "were true, there would be animal-life fossils of particular
animals without vision and others with varying degrees of eye
development ... Such fossils do not exist". (The first fish and the
first mammals are in fact separated by some 300m years, and the fossil
record has more eyes, in all stages of development, than the CIA).
But it also fascinates me because natural selection is such a barren
field for the fundamentalists to till. For 146 years Darwinian evolution
has seen off all comers. There is a massive accumulation of evidence -
from the fossil record, to genetics, to direct observation - that
appears to support it. Were they to concentrate instead on the questions
now assailing big bang theory, or on the failure so far to reconcile
gravity with quantum physics, or on the stubborn non-appearance of the
Higgs boson and the abiding mystery of the phenomenon of mass, the
Christian conservatives would be much harder to confront. Why pick on
Darwin?
It is surely because, as soon as you consider the implications, you must
cease to believe that either Life or life are affected by purpose. As G
Thomas Sharp, chairman of the Creation Truth Foundation, admitted to the
Chicago Tribune, "if we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and
historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of
Christianity. Period".
We lose far more than that. Darwinian evolution tells us that we are
incipient compost: assemblages of complex molecules that - for no
greater purpose than to secure sources of energy against competing
claims - have developed the ability to speculate. After a few score
years, the molecules disaggregate and return whence they came. Period.
As a gardener and ecologist, I find this oddly comforting. I like the
idea of literal reincarnation: that the molecules of which I am composed
will, once I have rotted, be incorporated into other organisms. Bits of
me will be pushing through the growing tips of trees, will creep over
them as caterpillars, will hunt those caterpillars as birds. When I die,
I'd like to be buried in a fashion which ensures that no part of me is
wasted. Then I can claim to have been of some use after all.
Is this not better than the awful lottery of judgment? Is a future we
can predict not more comforting than one committed to the whims of
inscrutable authority? Is eternal death not a happier prospect than
eternal life? The atoms of which we are composed, which we have borrowed
momentarily from the ecosphere, will be recycled until the universe
collapses. This is our continuity, our eternity. Why should anyone want
more?
Two days ago I would have claimed that the demand for more was universal
- that every society has or had its creation story and, as Joseph
Campbell put it, "it will always be the one shape-shifting yet
marvellously constant story that we find". But yesterday I read a study
by the anthropologist Daniel Everett of the language of the Piraha
people of the Brazilian Amazon, published in the latest edition of
Current Anthropology. Its findings could scarcely be more disturbing, or
more profound.
The Piraha, Everett reveals, possess "the most complex verbal morphology
I am aware of [and] are some of the brightest, pleasantest, most
fun-loving people that I know". Yet they have no numbers of any kind, no
terms for quantification (such as all, each, every, most and some), no
colour terms and no perfect tense. They appear to have borrowed their
pronouns from another language, having previously possessed none. They
have no "individual or collective memory of more than two generations
past", no drawing or other art, no fiction and "no creation stories or
myths".
All this, Everett believes, can be explained by a single characteristic:
"Piraha culture constrains communication to non-abstract subjects which
fall within the immediate experience of [the speaker]." What can be
discussed, in other words, is what has been seen. When it can no longer
be perceived, it ceases, in this realm at least, to exist. After
struggling with one grammatical curiosity, he realised that the Piraha
were "talking about liminality - situations in which an item goes in and
out of the boundaries of their experience. [Their] excitement at seeing
a canoe go around a river bend is hard to describe; they see this almost
as travelling into another dimension". The Piraha, still living, watch
the sparrow flit in and out of the banqueting hall.
"Happy the hare at morning," WH Auden wrote, "for she cannot read/ The
Hunter's waking thoughts. Lucky the leaf/ Unable to predict the fall ...
But what shall man do, who can whistle tunes by heart,/ Know to the bar
when death shall cut him short, like the cry of the shearwater?"
It seems to me that we are the happy ones. We, alone among organisms,
who perceive eternity, and know that the world will carry on without us.
2005 Guardian Newspapers
###
---
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0816-26.htm
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 05:32:37 AM |
|
|
In article <jhachm-8813F2.23593116082005@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Were they to concentrate instead on the questions
now assailing big bang theory...
But you know, an awful lot of them just love the "big bang." They appear
to think tht since it implies a beginning to the universe, and since
their "holy book" does as well, that means science supports them. So
until the big bang is tossed out (I'm guessing in favor of chaotic
expansion), they'll keep their grimy claws all over it.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
18 Aug 2005 12:11:19 AM |
|
|
In article <nemo0037-8BA67D.06315117082005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
In article <jhachm-8813F2.23593116082005@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Were they to concentrate instead on the questions
now assailing big bang theory...
But you know, an awful lot of them just love the "big bang." They appear
to think tht since it implies a beginning to the universe, and since
their "holy book" does as well, that means science supports them. So
until the big bang is tossed out (I'm guessing in favor of chaotic
expansion), they'll keep their grimy claws all over it.
The big bang is an interesting hypothesis. Whether it will stand the
test of time or be replaced by something else is uncertain and remains
to be seen. the real fundies can try if they want to fit it into their
biblical seven day creation model but it just won't go. If they want to
use their interpretation of the big bang as evidence for creation, then
they have to admit that Genesis is at least in part wrong.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
20 Aug 2005 10:24:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:59:31 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Another good article by George Monbiot.
---
A Life With No Purpose
Darwinism implies that the only eternal life we have is in the recycling
of our atoms. I find that comforting
<SNIP>
Science is not about comfort.
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Chesterton" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 02:17:51 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
<snip very long article>
I'm unable to understand why there is so much resistence to including
intelligent design alongside the teaching of evolution in the school
classroom. Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it. We aren't talking about creationism
here, with its ridiculous assertions concerning the coexistence of
dinosaurs and man or that there were dinsoaurs on the ark with Noah.
(Have any of these creationists stopped to think about how many of their
Biblical heroes would have been eaten alive by the dinosaurs had they
been alive at the same time that their heroes lived?) As I understand
it, intelligent design is miles apart from creationism in that there are
Darwinists who subscribe to intelligent design, references to the
identity of the designer are no longer included, and serious work has
been published by those who prefer the intelligent design idea. Surely
the idea of irreducible complexity and the evolutionary counterarguments
both desserve to receive a fair hearing. While dismissing creationism
as pseudoscience was quite understandable, I do not feel the same way
about those who dismiss with equal fervor the intelligent design
argument. At the very least I believe that the criticisms of the
mainstream's current understanding of natural evolution should be heard
because it seems to me that to deny anyone a chance to present whatever
evidence he or she may have against generally accepted thinking on
evolution smacks of someone trying to hide something.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 10:48:10 AM |
|
|
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time* in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
And: what 'holes' in evolutionary theory do you think you are referring to?
Do you genuinely understand the issue - or are you just being manipulated
into believing that these 'holes' exist?
We aren't talking about creationism
here,
Oh yes we are: *creationism in a lab coat* is still creationism...
with its ridiculous assertions concerning the coexistence of
dinosaurs and man or that there were dinsoaurs on the ark with Noah.
(Have any of these creationists stopped to think about how many of their
Biblical heroes would have been eaten alive by the dinosaurs had they
been alive at the same time that their heroes lived?)
That's merely a specific sub-cult of creationism which favours the notion of
a 'Young Earth'. Stop trying to cloud the issue with made-up irrelevancies:
you're giving yourself away by the obtrusive sacrifice of your own straw
men.
As I understand
it, intelligent design is miles apart from creationism in that there are
Darwinists who subscribe to intelligent design,
Really? Do tell us how they manage what must be an *amazing* balancing
act...
references to the
identity of the designer are no longer included,
How the hell is that supposed to fool anyone? When someone sits there and
says "Oooh! Nature is just *sooooo complex*!! There must have been an
'intelligent designer' OF SOME KIND <wink>", just what do you think it is
that they mean?
Answer: they mean 'The God of Abraham' -- and you are a dishonest creep for
pretending not to have noticed the fact.
and serious work has
been published by those who prefer the intelligent design idea.
Getting something 'published' has never been easier, chuckles...
Surely
the idea of irreducible complexity and the evolutionary counterarguments
both desserve to receive a fair hearing.
Indeed they do! And what's more, that's *precisely what they've been
getting* -- in the appropriate forum for such things; i.e. the
professionally scientific arena that contains the people best able to
address the specific technical points the ID-iots seek to raise. And in that
arena, the ID-iots have got their asses whipped every time -- which is why
they are now so keen to put their ideas directly to politicians and directly
to media people and directly to the non-scientific general public and
directly to vulnerable, trusting children -- in fact, directly to every
group in society that has *absolutely no competence* in the areas of
biology, biochemistry, statistics, etc., and thus directly to every group
that is in *absolutely no position* to see whether what they're being
offered is valid science or just flim-flam and technical-sounding guff.
At the very least I believe that the criticisms of the
mainstream's current understanding of natural evolution should be heard
because it seems to me that to deny anyone a chance to present whatever
evidence he or she may have against generally accepted thinking on
evolution smacks of someone trying to hide something.
Look, if you think 'criticisms of the mainstream's current understanding of
natural evolution should be heard', then you should find out exactly what
they are, and then make a TV programme about them or write a book about
them. If you are or become a scientist, you can try and incorporate them in
your work, and see what results it gets you. If you have a point, then in 20
years or less you'll find your discoveries have found their way into the
school syllabus and the canon of accepted science. But *don't* try and
pretend that evolutionary theory is vulnerable to the 'wish-fulfilment'
criticisms of ambitious fantasists; don't try and help them 'win the
argument' by jumping over the serious, sustained and informed examination of
what they say and instead forcing it down the throats of 14-year-olds who
can't tell a haemoglobin molecule from a hole in the ground; and don't try
to give a dead-end theology, however 'scientifically' attired, a final lease
of senile life by pretending that there's a truly scientific 'controversy'
somewhere within which such views have status: *there isn't*.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 01:11:36 PM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time* in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
And: what 'holes' in evolutionary theory do you think you are referring to?
Do you genuinely understand the issue - or are you just being manipulated
into believing that these 'holes' exist?
We aren't talking about creationism
here,
Oh yes we are: *creationism in a lab coat* is still creationism...
with its ridiculous assertions concerning the coexistence of
dinosaurs and man or that there were dinsoaurs on the ark with Noah.
(Have any of these creationists stopped to think about how many of their
Biblical heroes would have been eaten alive by the dinosaurs had they
been alive at the same time that their heroes lived?)
That's merely a specific sub-cult of creationism which favours the notion of
a 'Young Earth'. Stop trying to cloud the issue with made-up irrelevancies:
you're giving yourself away by the obtrusive sacrifice of your own straw
men.
As I understand
it, intelligent design is miles apart from creationism in that there are
Darwinists who subscribe to intelligent design,
Really? Do tell us how they manage what must be an *amazing* balancing
act...
references to the
identity of the designer are no longer included,
How the hell is that supposed to fool anyone? When someone sits there and
says "Oooh! Nature is just *sooooo complex*!! There must have been an
'intelligent designer' OF SOME KIND <wink>", just what do you think it is
that they mean?
Answer: they mean 'The God of Abraham' -- and you are a dishonest creep for
pretending not to have noticed the fact.
and serious work has
been published by those who prefer the intelligent design idea.
Getting something 'published' has never been easier, chuckles...
Surely
the idea of irreducible complexity and the evolutionary counterarguments
both desserve to receive a fair hearing.
Indeed they do! And what's more, that's *precisely what they've been
getting* -- in the appropriate forum for such things; i.e. the
professionally scientific arena that contains the people best able to
address the specific technical points the ID-iots seek to raise. And in that
arena, the ID-iots have got their asses whipped every time -- which is why
they are now so keen to put their ideas directly to politicians and directly
to media people and directly to the non-scientific general public and
directly to vulnerable, trusting children -- in fact, directly to every
group in society that has *absolutely no competence* in the areas of
biology, biochemistry, statistics, etc., and thus directly to every group
that is in *absolutely no position* to see whether what they're being
offered is valid science or just flim-flam and technical-sounding guff.
Creationism also had its day in court (several times) *before* people
started painting "ID" on the side and hoping nobody would notice. The
problem for the Creationists back then (and today) was that the revival
meeting theatrics that they used to impress their rank & file doesn't
impress the judges.
A "fair hearing" is the LAST thing ID/Creationism proponents want.
Every time they get a fair hearing, they get their hats handed to them.
<...>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 02:32:36 PM |
|
|
VoiceOfReason wrote:
Creationism also had its day in court (several times) *before* people
started painting "ID" on the side and hoping nobody would notice. The
problem for the Creationists back then (and today) was that the revival
meeting theatrics that they used to impress their rank & file doesn't
impress the judges.
A "fair hearing" is the LAST thing ID/Creationism proponents want.
Every time they get a fair hearing, they get their hats handed to them.
<...>
Well except for the Scopes Monkey Trial.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 06:28:17 PM |
|
|
Cyde Weys wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:
Creationism also had its day in court (several times) *before* people
started painting "ID" on the side and hoping nobody would notice. The
problem for the Creationists back then (and today) was that the revival
meeting theatrics that they used to impress their rank & file doesn't
impress the judges.
A "fair hearing" is the LAST thing ID/Creationism proponents want.
Every time they get a fair hearing, they get their hats handed to them.
<...>
Well except for the Scopes Monkey Trial.
That was also a fair hearing. Did Scopes teach evolution in the Dayton,
TN classroom? Yes (well sort of- he mentioned it). So he was guilty. He
was fined $100 and the conviction was overturned because any fine over
(I believe) $25 at that time had to be levied by a jury.
That was entirely a separate issue from the constitutionality of
teaching creationism in public school (although the Tennessee law was
later struck down by the Supremes).
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 11:23:10 AM |
|
|
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time* in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
The holocaust people are still living. No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
And: what 'holes' in evolutionary theory do you think you are referring to?
Do you genuinely understand the issue - or are you just being manipulated
into believing that these 'holes' exist?
We aren't talking about creationism
here,
Oh yes we are: *creationism in a lab coat* is still creationism...
with its ridiculous assertions concerning the coexistence of
dinosaurs and man or that there were dinsoaurs on the ark with Noah.
(Have any of these creationists stopped to think about how many of their
Biblical heroes would have been eaten alive by the dinosaurs had they
been alive at the same time that their heroes lived?)
That's merely a specific sub-cult of creationism which favours the notion of
a 'Young Earth'. Stop trying to cloud the issue with made-up irrelevancies:
you're giving yourself away by the obtrusive sacrifice of your own straw
men.
As I understand
it, intelligent design is miles apart from creationism in that there are
Darwinists who subscribe to intelligent design,
Really? Do tell us how they manage what must be an *amazing* balancing
act...
references to the
identity of the designer are no longer included,
How the hell is that supposed to fool anyone? When someone sits there and
says "Oooh! Nature is just *sooooo complex*!! There must have been an
'intelligent designer' OF SOME KIND <wink>", just what do you think it is
that they mean?
Answer: they mean 'The God of Abraham' -- and you are a dishonest creep for
pretending not to have noticed the fact.
and serious work has
been published by those who prefer the intelligent design idea.
Getting something 'published' has never been easier, chuckles...
Surely
the idea of irreducible complexity and the evolutionary counterarguments
both desserve to receive a fair hearing.
Indeed they do! And what's more, that's *precisely what they've been
getting* -- in the appropriate forum for such things; i.e. the
professionally scientific arena that contains the people best able to
address the specific technical points the ID-iots seek to raise. And in that
arena, the ID-iots have got their asses whipped every time -- which is why
they are now so keen to put their ideas directly to politicians and directly
to media people and directly to the non-scientific general public and
directly to vulnerable, trusting children -- in fact, directly to every
group in society that has *absolutely no competence* in the areas of
biology, biochemistry, statistics, etc., and thus directly to every group
that is in *absolutely no position* to see whether what they're being
offered is valid science or just flim-flam and technical-sounding guff.
At the very least I believe that the criticisms of the
mainstream's current understanding of natural evolution should be heard
because it seems to me that to deny anyone a chance to present whatever
evidence he or she may have against generally accepted thinking on
evolution smacks of someone trying to hide something.
Look, if you think 'criticisms of the mainstream's current understanding of
natural evolution should be heard', then you should find out exactly what
they are, and then make a TV programme about them or write a book about
them. If you are or become a scientist, you can try and incorporate them in
your work, and see what results it gets you. If you have a point, then in 20
years or less you'll find your discoveries have found their way into the
school syllabus and the canon of accepted science. But *don't* try and
pretend that evolutionary theory is vulnerable to the 'wish-fulfilment'
criticisms of ambitious fantasists; don't try and help them 'win the
argument' by jumping over the serious, sustained and informed examination of
what they say and instead forcing it down the throats of 14-year-olds who
can't tell a haemoglobin molecule from a hole in the ground; and don't try
to give a dead-end theology, however 'scientifically' attired, a final lease
of senile life by pretending that there's a truly scientific 'controversy'
somewhere within which such views have status: *there isn't*.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 04:32:28 PM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1124295789.968185.290590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it
never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time*
in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need
to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
Yes, history is a rocket science. It forms hypothesis that make predictions,
and tests them, the results of which are open to peer review.
The holocaust people are still living.
They are the least of the evidence.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
But evolutionary theory forms hypothesis that make predictions, and tests
them, the results of which are open to peer review.
Too bad for you.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 06:20:43 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1124295789.968185.290590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it
never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time*
in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need
to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
Yes, history is a rocket science. It forms hypothesis that make predictions,
and tests them, the results of which are open to peer review.
The holocaust people are still living.
They are the least of the evidence.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
But evolutionary theory forms hypothesis that make predictions, and tests
them, the results of which are open to peer review.
Then tell us how you ancestors, the monkeys
cured Malaria 300 billions years ago. Test it, make prediction
and open it to like-minded liars or peer reviwers so that
you they may crongratulate you in your lie and give you a diploma
Too bad for you.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 10:21:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1124295789.968185.290590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it
never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time*
in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need
to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
Yes, history is a rocket science. It forms hypothesis that make predictions,
and tests them, the results of which are open to peer review.
The holocaust people are still living.
They are the least of the evidence.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
But evolutionary theory forms hypothesis that make predictions, and tests
them, the results of which are open to peer review.
Then tell us how you ancestors, the monkeys
cured Malaria 300 billions years ago. Test it, make prediction
and open it to like-minded liars or peer reviwers so that
you they may crongratulate you in your lie and give you a diploma
Ummm...
What?
Has anyone ever claimed that our monkey ancestors cured malaria, or
anything comparable?
When did the goatherds of 3000 years ago build a rocket ship? WTF are
you trying to say - could you please rephrase that question?
The universe is only about 15 billion years old (we think), and the
Earth about one third of that. How can you criticize science when you
don't seem to understand what any interested fifth grader knows?
Please explain why we have plantaris tendons, if we are a product of
processes other than natural selection (which doesn't preclude a
creator, only him/her using any other method).
Too bad for you.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
18 Aug 2005 04:20:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:<snipped>
Then tell us how you ancestors, the monkeys
cured Malaria 300 billions years ago. Test it, make prediction
and open it to like-minded liars or peer reviwers so that
you they may crongratulate you in your lie and give you a diploma
Wow!
Are you trying for the "Most Incomprehensible Rant" award?
By the way, if you're jealous of the qualifications of others on this
forum, why not go out and buy yourself a PhD? I'm sure you can pick one
up for a few dollars, and if you need to advice you'll find your fellow
creationists are well-informed on how to go about it.
By the way, calling people liars without justification is bearing false
witness, something Jesus taught was not a good thing to do. Or do you
think that he makes a special exception in your case?
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
19 Aug 2005 12:28:56 AM |
|
|
In article <1124320843.367682.82540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1124295789.968185.290590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it
never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time*
in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need
to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
Yes, history is a rocket science. It forms hypothesis that make predictions,
and tests them, the results of which are open to peer review.
The holocaust people are still living.
They are the least of the evidence.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
But evolutionary theory forms hypothesis that make predictions, and tests
them, the results of which are open to peer review.
Then tell us how you ancestors, the monkeys
cured Malaria 300 billions years ago. Test it, make prediction
and open it to like-minded liars or peer reviwers so that
you they may crongratulate you in your lie and give you a diploma
You really don't know much about the subject do you? There were no
monkeys 300 billion years ago and anyway humans did not descend from
them.
Please get an education.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
19 Aug 2005 12:54:00 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:28:56 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <1124320843.367682.82540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1124295789.968185.290590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it
never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time*
in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need
to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
Yes, history is a rocket science. It forms hypothesis that make predictions,
and tests them, the results of which are open to peer review.
The holocaust people are still living.
They are the least of the evidence.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
But evolutionary theory forms hypothesis that make predictions, and tests
them, the results of which are open to peer review.
Then tell us how you ancestors, the monkeys
cured Malaria 300 billions years ago. Test it, make prediction
and open it to like-minded liars or peer reviwers so that
you they may crongratulate you in your lie and give you a diploma
You really don't know much about the subject do you? There were no
monkeys 300 billion years ago and anyway humans did not descend from
them.
Please get an education.
Not sure if that's sound advice for Before-Abraham-Was-I-Was-Duped.
If he had a brain . . .
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
20 Aug 2005 01:02:42 AM |
|
|
In article <hssag1h40gecdo6tthl31dedb8khsnvg9q@4ax.com>,
Apostate <apostate.invalid.still@yeehaw.org> wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:28:56 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <1124320843.367682.82540@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1124295789.968185.290590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe
that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it
never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal
time*
in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really
need
to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few
holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
Yes, history is a rocket science. It forms hypothesis that make
predictions,
and tests them, the results of which are open to peer review.
The holocaust people are still living.
They are the least of the evidence.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
But evolutionary theory forms hypothesis that make predictions, and
tests
them, the results of which are open to peer review.
Then tell us how you ancestors, the monkeys
cured Malaria 300 billions years ago. Test it, make prediction
and open it to like-minded liars or peer reviwers so that
you they may crongratulate you in your lie and give you a diploma
You really don't know much about the subject do you? There were no
monkeys 300 billion years ago and anyway humans did not descend from
them.
Please get an education.
Not sure if that's sound advice for Before-Abraham-Was-I-Was-Duped.
If he had a brain . . .
True. I could lecture a rock on the theory of relativity, but it
wouldn't do me or the rock any good.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
19 Aug 2005 04:33:56 PM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 16:20:43 -0700,
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:1124295789.968185.290590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it
never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time*
in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need
to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
Yes, history is a rocket science. It forms hypothesis that make predictions,
and tests them, the results of which are open to peer review.
The holocaust people are still living.
They are the least of the evidence.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
But evolutionary theory forms hypothesis that make predictions, and tests
them, the results of which are open to peer review.
Then tell us how you ancestors, the monkeys
cured Malaria 300 billions years ago. Test it, make prediction
and open it to like-minded liars or peer reviwers so that
you they may crongratulate you in your lie and give you a diploma
Just out of curiousity, I'd love to know the particular nature of your
neurological malfunction. If my hunch is right, I'd recommend you ask
somebody turn off the breaker so you can pull the fork out of the electrical
socket.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 11:39:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time* in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
No, the discussion was about what should be taught in schools, and how
one should decide what to include in the curriculum.
Is History now a rocket Science?
The holocaust people are still living.
So any history which was *not* witnessed by people still living should
not be taught. Fine.
By the way, where does that leave the Bible? Or have the original
writers been living quietly in a cave somewhere in the Negev for the
past couple of millenia?
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
Now you're ranting.
Take a deep breath, count to 20, and try to use that great lump of fat
in your head for *thinking*. A stuggle, I know, but you may find it
worthwhile.
RF
And: what 'holes' in evolutionary theory do you think you are referring to?
Do you genuinely understand the issue - or are you just being manipulated
into believing that these 'holes' exist?
We aren't talking about creationism
here,
Oh yes we are: *creationism in a lab coat* is still creationism...
with its ridiculous assertions concerning the coexistence of
dinosaurs and man or that there were dinsoaurs on the ark with Noah.
(Have any of these creationists stopped to think about how many of their
Biblical heroes would have been eaten alive by the dinosaurs had they
been alive at the same time that their heroes lived?)
That's merely a specific sub-cult of creationism which favours the notion of
a 'Young Earth'. Stop trying to cloud the issue with made-up irrelevancies:
you're giving yourself away by the obtrusive sacrifice of your own straw
men.
As I understand
it, intelligent design is miles apart from creationism in that there are
Darwinists who subscribe to intelligent design,
Really? Do tell us how they manage what must be an *amazing* balancing
act...
references to the
identity of the designer are no longer included,
How the hell is that supposed to fool anyone? When someone sits there and
says "Oooh! Nature is just *sooooo complex*!! There must have been an
'intelligent designer' OF SOME KIND <wink>", just what do you think it is
that they mean?
Answer: they mean 'The God of Abraham' -- and you are a dishonest creep for
pretending not to have noticed the fact.
and serious work has
been published by those who prefer the intelligent design idea.
Getting something 'published' has never been easier, chuckles...
Surely
the idea of irreducible complexity and the evolutionary counterarguments
both desserve to receive a fair hearing.
Indeed they do! And what's more, that's *precisely what they've been
getting* -- in the appropriate forum for such things; i.e. the
professionally scientific arena that contains the people best able to
address the specific technical points the ID-iots seek to raise. And in that
arena, the ID-iots have got their asses whipped every time -- which is why
they are now so keen to put their ideas directly to politicians and directly
to media people and directly to the non-scientific general public and
directly to vulnerable, trusting children -- in fact, directly to every
group in society that has *absolutely no competence* in the areas of
biology, biochemistry, statistics, etc., and thus directly to every group
that is in *absolutely no position* to see whether what they're being
offered is valid science or just flim-flam and technical-sounding guff.
At the very least I believe that the criticisms of the
mainstream's current understanding of natural evolution should be heard
because it seems to me that to deny anyone a chance to present whatever
evidence he or she may have against generally accepted thinking on
evolution smacks of someone trying to hide something.
Look, if you think 'criticisms of the mainstream's current understanding of
natural evolution should be heard', then you should find out exactly what
they are, and then make a TV programme about them or write a book about
them. If you are or become a scientist, you can try and incorporate them in
your work, and see what results it gets you. If you have a point, then in 20
years or less you'll find your discoveries have found their way into the
school syllabus and the canon of accepted science. But *don't* try and
pretend that evolutionary theory is vulnerable to the 'wish-fulfilment'
criticisms of ambitious fantasists; don't try and help them 'win the
argument' by jumping over the serious, sustained and informed examination of
what they say and instead forcing it down the throats of 14-year-olds who
can't tell a haemoglobin molecule from a hole in the ground; and don't try
to give a dead-end theology, however 'scientifically' attired, a final lease
of senile life by pretending that there's a truly scientific 'controversy'
somewhere within which such views have status: *there isn't*.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scooter the Mighty" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 11:40:49 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time* in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
The point is more general. People believe all sorts of things, but
that doesn't mean there is a "controversy" or that school should waste
time teaching all those beliefs. The problem needn't be limited to
science.
The holocaust people are still living.
So? That doesn't seem to stop holocaust deniers.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
And having a first hand witness is the only way to establish something?
That throws 99.99% of science down the toilet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 02:46:24 PM |
|
|
"Scooter the Mighty" <Greyguy3@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124296848.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
And having a first hand witness is the only way to establish something?
That throws 99.99% of science down the toilet.
And *100%* of 'revealed religious truth'...!
So: we win by *0.01%*...!
Good enough for me!
:-)
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 03:51:11 PM |
|
|
Scooter the Mighty wrote:
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time* in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
The point is more general. People believe all sorts of things, but
that doesn't mean there is a "controversy" or that school should waste
time teaching all those beliefs. The problem needn't be limited to
science.
The holocaust people are still living.
So? That doesn't seem to stop holocaust deniers.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
And having a first hand witness is the only way to establish something?
It has been the norm
That throws 99.99% of science down the toilet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "VBM" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 04:12:27 PM |
|
|
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message > >
And having a first hand witness is the only way to establish something?
It has been the norm
No, not really. Have you never watched CSI? If we had to rely on
eyewitness testimony to establish things with confidence, we would have
confidence in very little. When you are considering evidence of what
happened in the past, you will only rarely have eyewitness testimony.
Usually you will have circumstantial evidence. Things left behind,
phenomenon resulting from the event (or a lack of a phenomenon could be
evidence against an event happening), etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 06:15:55 PM |
|
|
VBM wrote:
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message > >
And having a first hand witness is the only way to establish something?
It has been the norm
No, not really. Have you never watched CSI? If we had to rely on
eyewitness testimony to establish things with confidence, we would have
confidence in very little. When you are considering evidence of what
happened in the past, you will only rarely have eyewitness testimony.
Usually you will have circumstantial evidence. Things left behind,
phenomenon resulting from the event (or a lack of a phenomenon could be
evidence against an event happening), etc.
You should tell this to the erring scholars on the life of Jesus
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 06:39:09 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Scooter the Mighty wrote:
wrote:
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time* in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
The point is more general. People believe all sorts of things, but
that doesn't mean there is a "controversy" or that school should waste
time teaching all those beliefs. The problem needn't be limited to
science.
The holocaust people are still living.
So? That doesn't seem to stop holocaust deniers.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
And having a first hand witness is the only way to establish something?
It has been the norm
Any police investigator in the world would laugh at you for saying
that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 07:12:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Scooter the Mighty wrote:
wrote:
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time* in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
The point is more general. People believe all sorts of things, but
that doesn't mean there is a "controversy" or that school should waste
time teaching all those beliefs. The problem needn't be limited to
science.
The holocaust people are still living.
So? That doesn't seem to stop holocaust deniers.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
And having a first hand witness is the only way to establish something?
It has been the norm
You've been reading way too much ***** Tracy. The days of someone
sitting in the station house looking through a book of mugshots is long
gone. Likewise police lineups. The problem is that eyewitness testimony
is notoriously unreliable.
A relative was a detective with NYPD for more than 20 years.
"Circumstantial evidence", he once told me, was the strongest evidence,
since it could not be refuted in most cases. Fingerprints, skin
samples, DNA, hair, threads or other bits of clothing, footprints,
tireprints, you name it- the list goes on. His best illustration of
that was obtaining a conviction of four evil thugs, who had poured
gasoline on a homeless man and burned him to death. Not only were there
no eyewitnesses, there wasn't even a body to speak of.
I recall a true-crime book I read about a woman who killed several of
her children- the prosecutor was able to match the plastic trash bag
containing the remains with the box of bags in the woman's kitchen.
Utterly reliable, and no eyewitness involved.
On the other hand, people change their eyewitness testimony all the
time. People have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms on eyewitness
testimony (usually that of a single witness) only to have the
conviction overturned on genetic "circumstantial" evidence.
Chris
That throws 99.99% of science down the toilet.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 04:04:26 PM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 13:51:11 -0700, wrote:
Scooter the Mighty wrote:
wrote:
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time* in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
The point is more general. People believe all sorts of things, but
that doesn't mean there is a "controversy" or that school should waste
time teaching all those beliefs. The problem needn't be limited to
science.
The holocaust people are still living.
So? That doesn't seem to stop holocaust deniers.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
And having a first hand witness is the only way to establish something?
It has been the norm
really? since when?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 06:13:40 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 13:51:11 -0700, wrote:
Scooter the Mighty wrote:
wrote:
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time* in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
The point is more general. People believe all sorts of things, but
that doesn't mean there is a "controversy" or that school should waste
time teaching all those beliefs. The problem needn't be limited to
science.
The holocaust people are still living.
So? That doesn't seem to stop holocaust deniers.
No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
And having a first hand witness is the only way to establish something?
It has been the norm
really? since when?
Apparently you never read the historian's criticism on the Gospels.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 08:09:41 PM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 16:13:40 -0700, wrote:
Bob wrote:
And having a first hand witness is the only way to establish something?
It has been the norm
really? since when?
Apparently you never read the historian's criticism on the Gospels.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........
whatever this means. since there are over 300,000 existing fragments
of the NT, and there are 30,000 xtian denominations, all using the
same bible, one can be only left breathless at the assertion that the
bible is literally true.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 11:49:37 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Katt wrote:
"Ian Chesterton" <ichesterton@spfd.com> wrote in message
news:4302E4DD.604D@spfd.com...
Surely if evolution is a fact, as many assert it is, then it
can withstand the challenge of dissenting scientists who believe that
the fact has a few holes in it.
And 'surely if the Holocaust is a fact, as many assert it is, then it can
withstand the challenge of dissenting historians who believe that it never
happened...' Yeah - let's 'teach the controversy' there too: *equal time* in
the history classroom for those who, for some reason, really really need to
convince kids that the story they've always been fed has 'a few holes' in
it...
I thought we were talking about Science and how Science works.
Is History now a rocket Science?
Well, there's history, there's anthropology, then there's archaeology,
and then finally, there's biology. Evolution falls under the biology
part of the scale.
If you think evolution is just history then you are sadly mistaken. If
you read any scientific papers on evolution you'd see there's DNA and
stuff (I'm trying to bring it down to your level).
The holocaust people are still living. No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
"Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him" eh? That's, uhhh, that's really
nice. Whatever happened to not judging others? Why would he be going
to hell, exactly? Many denominations of Christianity (or other
religions, for that matter) don't see any problem with evolution.
And even though Holocaust survivors are still living there are racists
out there who deny it happened. I say racists because, quite frankly,
I've never met nor even heard of a Holocaust denier who wasn't a racist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - A Life With No Purpose |
17 Aug 2005 12:40:31 PM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 09:23:10 -0700, wrote:
The holocaust people are still living. No one was there
when Darwin-eternal damnation be upon him-passed that gas
which turned the first monkey into a human being
what's ironic is that codebreaker thinks darwin was the first
evolutionist.
he wasn't. evolution is an old, old idea. codebreaker just doesnt know
it. what darwin did was come up with a testable mechanism for
evolution. he turned it into a science
and THAT codebreaker can't handle.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
