| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"John Clancy McDonald kookwoman1\@kooksof theworld.net" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2008 07:04:36 PM |
| Object: |
Is Evolution a Fact? |
“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many
scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things
may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with
subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly,
recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal
breeders. These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists
attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name
implies what many scientists assert—that these minute changes furnish
the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has
observed, which they call macroevolution.
You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his
famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special
creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin
said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or
so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved—by means of “extremely
slight modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on
earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and
produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes
into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution.
To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small
changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big
changes over long periods of time?’
The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and
animals.
Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be
considered a fact?
.
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: EVOLUTION IS CRAP |
23 Jan 2008 09:59:55 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:54:50 -0500, Zherald Trainer <master@tardis.uk>
wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:07:33 -0800 (PST) Codebreaker
<Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> carved the following into the hard stone
of alt.atheism
On Jan 22, 6:24 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Jan 22, 5:59 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@big-loony.cow> screeched:
On Jan 20, 8:04 pm, John Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof
theworld.net"> wrote:
"EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun," asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
No!
Evolution is not even Science yet.
You misspelled " Creationism/ID is not even or ever science. "
Evolution IS science. Deal with it.
EVOLUTION IS CRAP. HOW ABOUT THAT?
You're wrong. Evolution is a proven fact. You can read thousands of
journals containing reports of experiments done to confirm that
evolution works.
--
Such as?
Is your daughter still giving BJs for a quarter, Jabbers?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
20 Jan 2008 07:16:31 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500 in fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net, John
Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Yes.
Next question?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"You know what my favorite thing in the world is?
I'll tell you.
Each week, millions and millions of upper middle class American
citizens put on expensive dress clothes, load themselves into
suv's and drive past homeless shelters, orphanages, prisons,
missions and halfway houses on their way to a very expensive
and nice church, where someone tells them to be more like Jesus.
That is fucking awesome, let me tell you."
http://tinyurl.com/2uglqf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 09:49:48 AM |
|
|
<hhyapster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef3c43ec-ac52-443d-b281-ec575dee8e9b@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 9:16 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500 in fn0r37$8o...@news.albasani.net,
John
Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
"EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun," asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Yes.
Next question?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"You know what my favorite thing in the world is?
I'll tell you.
Each week, millions and millions of upper middle class American
citizens put on expensive dress clothes, load themselves into
suv's and drive past homeless shelters, orphanages, prisons,
missions and halfway houses on their way to a very expensive
and nice church, where someone tells them to be more like Jesus.
That is fucking awesome, let me tell you."
http://tinyurl.com/2uglqf
The awesome you call is based on two facts:
1. Failure of influence of the churches
2. Individualistic or personalized life
Who cares for other?
Um, what?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 10:02:31 AM |
|
|
In article <5vjt8kF1m5k8aU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
<hhyapster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef3c43ec-ac52-443d-b281-ec575dee8e9b@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 9:16 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500 in fn0r37$8o...@news.albasani.net,
John
Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
"EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun," asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Yes.
Next question?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"You know what my favorite thing in the world is?
I'll tell you.
Each week, millions and millions of upper middle class American
citizens put on expensive dress clothes, load themselves into
suv's and drive past homeless shelters, orphanages, prisons,
missions and halfway houses on their way to a very expensive
and nice church, where someone tells them to be more like Jesus.
That is fucking awesome, let me tell you."
http://tinyurl.com/2uglqf
The awesome you call is based on two facts:
1. Failure of influence of the churches
2. Individualistic or personalized life
Who cares for other?
Um, what?
theyre just pointing out that notion of charity
for people outside your family your clan
was invented by atheists not christians
and that atheists devote a greater proportion of income to charity
than christians do
from this moral high ground it is not hypocritical of atheists
to criticize the lesser charity of others
obvious really
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 04:22:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:49:48 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
<hhyapster@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef3c43ec-ac52-443d-b281-ec575dee8e9b@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 9:16 am, "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500 in fn0r37$8o...@news.albasani.net,
John
Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
"EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun," asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Yes.
Next question?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"You know what my favorite thing in the world is?
I'll tell you.
Each week, millions and millions of upper middle class American
citizens put on expensive dress clothes, load themselves into
suv's and drive past homeless shelters, orphanages, prisons,
missions and halfway houses on their way to a very expensive
and nice church, where someone tells them to be more like Jesus.
That is fucking awesome, let me tell you."
http://tinyurl.com/2uglqf
The awesome you call is based on two facts:
1. Failure of influence of the churches
2. Individualistic or personalized life
Who cares for other?
Um, what?
Beats me.
Is there anyone can can translate gobbledegook?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Clancy McDonald kookwoman1\@kooksof theworld.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 04:28:40 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500 in fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net, John
Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Yes.
Next question?
More of an observation In the book Evolution, Dobzhansky and his
coworkers described it as a hypothesis or theory and made this
admission: “Scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally,
since their truth can never be conclusively established.” Using Dr. Karl
Popper as authority, the book also states: “A hypothesis that is not
subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of empirical
[experimental] falsification does not belong in the realm of science.”
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard also refers to Popper and says: “A set of
ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.”
.
|
|
|
| User: "TimK" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 07:16:22 PM |
|
|
"John Clancy McDonald" <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote in
message news:fn36aq$5t4$1@news.albasani.net...
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500 in fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net,
John
Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
"EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun," asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Yes.
Next question?
More of an observation In the book Evolution, Dobzhansky and his coworkers
described it as a hypothesis or theory and made this admission:
"Scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally, since their
truth can never be conclusively established." Using Dr. Karl Popper as
authority, the book also states: "A hypothesis that is not subject, at
least in principle, to the possibility of empirical [experimental]
falsification does not belong in the realm of science." Stephen Jay Gould
of Harvard also refers to Popper and says: "A set of ideas that cannot, in
principle, be falsified is not science."
Evolution is a change in gene frequency over time. Want to falsify
evolution? Just demonstrate that genes are fixed and unchanging. Or
failing that (and you will fail) have a go at demonstrating that changes in
genotype never equal changes in phenotype. Get back to us when you've had
enough.
Good luck!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Johannson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? - They're wise to you Jabbers!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
21 Jan 2008 04:33:32 PM |
|
|
"John Clancy McDonald" <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote in
message news:fn36aq$5t4$1@news.albasani.net...
Snip JABRIOL bullcrap....................
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 04:48:07 PM |
|
|
More of an observation In the book Evolution, Dobzhansky and his
coworkers described it as a hypothesis or theory and made this
described what as a hypothesis? evolution?
evolution is an event
either it happens or it doesnt
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 07:52:16 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:28:40 -0500 in fn36aq$5t4$1@news.albasani.net, John
Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500 in fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net,
John Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts
Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of
course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot.
But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of
evolution with the same undisputed support?
Yes.
Next question?
More of an observation In the book Evolution, Dobzhansky and his
coworkers described it as a hypothesis or theory and made this
admission: “Scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally,
since their truth can never be conclusively established.” Using Dr. Karl
Popper as authority, the book also states: “A hypothesis that is not
subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of empirical
[experimental] falsification does not belong in the realm of science.”
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard also refers to Popper and says: “A set of
ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.”
Evolution could be falsified. But hasn't.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his
country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it.”
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 07:03:15 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:28:40 -0500, John Clancy McDonald wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500 in fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net, John
Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun, asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Yes.
Next question?
More of an observation In the book Evolution, Dobzhansky and his
coworkers described it as a hypothesis or theory and made this
admission: Scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally,
since their truth can never be conclusively established. Using Dr. Karl
Popper as authority, the book also states: A hypothesis that is not
subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of empirical
[experimental] falsification does not belong in the realm of science.
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard also refers to Popper and says: A set of
ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.
Evolution is falsifiable. Creationism isn't. How would you falsify "A
magical super-Dad did it"?
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
22 Jan 2008 03:44:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:03:15 -0500, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:28:40 -0500, John Clancy McDonald wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500 in fn0r37$8oe$1@news.albasani.net, John
Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Yes.
Next question?
More of an observation In the book Evolution, Dobzhansky and his
coworkers described it as a hypothesis or theory and made this
admission: “Scientific hypotheses can only be accepted provisionally,
since their truth can never be conclusively established.” Using Dr. Karl
Popper as authority, the book also states: “A hypothesis that is not
subject, at least in principle, to the possibility of empirical
[experimental] falsification does not belong in the realm of science.”
Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard also refers to Popper and says: “A set of
ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.”
Evolution is falsifiable. Creationism isn't. How would you falsify "A
magical super-Dad did it"?
Ask 'em to show us this sky-pixie.
Until then, it remains a pathetic delusion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daedalus" |
|
| Title: Yes! [Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 01:25:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500, John Clancy McDonald
<""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
Yes. Evolution is a fact! I am pleased to bring the light of this
truth and restore peace to these divided groups. Everyone can stop
arguing about it now and live in harmony.
I love you all and wish you well.
Jade
.
|
|
|
| User: "gregvk" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes! [Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 01:33:44 PM |
|
|
Daedalus <jade@newtko0ouks.biz> wrote in
news:6dphp3tuc164c9d9no15ope8fm2iatredp@4ax.com:
Yes. Evolution is a fact!
That explains why you look so much like _Australopithecus africanus_.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daedalus" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes! [Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 01:38:59 PM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2008 19:33:44 GMT, gregvk <greg@nospam.okthx> wrote:
Daedalus <jade@newtko0ouks.biz> wrote in
news:6dphp3tuc164c9d9no15ope8fm2iatredp@4ax.com:
Yes. Evolution is a fact!
That explains why you look so much like _Australopithecus africanus_.
Hi Greg! Thank you for believeing in what I do and living another day
as a soldier in my army of truth. I really admire how you have been
working to spread the word for me.
I am flattered to hear you have been imagining what I might look like.
I think your imagination has conjured something more akin to my animal
spirit. lol!
I have been imagining what you look like while I read your glorious
posts as well. I will post a picture for you when I get the chance.
Be well.
Jade
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turdo Jo" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes! [Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 02:06:08 PM |
|
|
Daedalus wrote:
On 24 Jan 2008 19:33:44 GMT, gregvk <greg@nospam.okthx> wrote:
Daedalus <jade@newtko0ouks.biz> wrote in
news:6dphp3tuc164c9d9no15ope8fm2iatredp@4ax.com:
Yes. Evolution is a fact!
That explains why you look so much like _Australopithecus africanus_.
Hi Greg! Thank you for believeing in what I do and living another day
as a soldier in my army of truth. I really admire how you have been
working to spread the word for me.
I am flattered to hear you have been imagining what I might look like.
I think your imagination has conjured something more akin to my animal
spirit. lol!
I have been imagining what you look like while I read your glorious
posts as well. I will post a picture for you when I get the chance.
Be well.
Jade
You two should get a room.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Yes! [Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 01:43:16 PM |
|
|
In article <6dphp3tuc164c9d9no15ope8fm2iatredp@4ax.com>,
Daedalus <jade@newtko0ouks.biz> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500, John Clancy McDonald
<""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> wrote:
Yes. Evolution is a fact! I am pleased to bring the light of this
of course its a fact
truth and restore peace to these divided groups. Everyone can stop
arguing about it now and live in harmony.
now if we can just agree what causes it
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 06:41:50 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:04:36 -0500, John Clancy McDonald wrote:
Evolution denial in a nutshell:
I would like the Universe to be different than it is. Rather than adjust
my expectations of reality, I will insist that reality isn't real, and my
fantasies are. When I gather enough similarly deluded people, we will
pressure our local school boards to teach school children that my
fantasies are fact.
The Universe doesn't give a flying ***** what you want reality to be like.
It is what it is. Deal with it.
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "ebataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 09:20:32 AM |
|
|
Elijahovah wrote:
Evolution denial in a nutshell:
I would like the Universe to be different than it is. Rather than adjust
my expectations of reality, I will insist that reality isn't real, and my
fantasies are. When I gather enough similarly deluded people, we will
pressure our local school boards to teach school children that my
fantasies are fact.
Adam's creation in 4025 BC
denial of it in a nutshell:........... goes like this.
I would like the Universe to be different than it is. Rather than
adjust
my expectations of reality, I will insist that reality isn't real, and
my
fantasies are. When I gather enough similarly deluded people, we will
pressure our local school boards to teach school children that my
fantasies are fact. I would like to know where tey get the right to
force
the evolution and not allow the other theories.
Scientific evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 10:10:31 AM |
|
|
In article <412mj.2775$7d1.1339@news01.roc.ny>,
ebataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Elijahovah wrote:
Evolution denial in a nutshell:
I would like the Universe to be different than it is. Rather than adjust
my expectations of reality, I will insist that reality isn't real, and my
fantasies are. When I gather enough similarly deluded people, we will
pressure our local school boards to teach school children that my
fantasies are fact.
Adam's creation in 4025 BC
denial of it in a nutshell:........... goes like this.
I would like the Universe to be different than it is. Rather than
adjust
my expectations of reality, I will insist that reality isn't real, and
my
fantasies are. When I gather enough similarly deluded people, we will
pressure our local school boards to teach school children that my
fantasies are fact. I would like to know where tey get the right to
force
the evolution and not allow the other theories.
Scientific evidence.
prove scientific evidence is a valid criteria
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 12:56:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:10:31 -0800, mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
In article <412mj.2775$7d1.1339@news01.roc.ny>,
ebataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
Elijahovah wrote:
Evolution denial in a nutshell:
I would like the Universe to be different than it is. Rather than adjust
my expectations of reality, I will insist that reality isn't real, and my
fantasies are. When I gather enough similarly deluded people, we will
pressure our local school boards to teach school children that my
fantasies are fact.
Adam's creation in 4025 BC
denial of it in a nutshell:........... goes like this.
I would like the Universe to be different than it is. Rather than
adjust
my expectations of reality, I will insist that reality isn't real, and
my
fantasies are. When I gather enough similarly deluded people, we will
pressure our local school boards to teach school children that my
fantasies are fact. I would like to know where tey get the right to
force
the evolution and not allow the other theories.
Scientific evidence.
prove scientific evidence is a valid criteria
How would you prove the validity of science without using science itself?
The best you can say is that, as a method of understanding the physical
universe, science works better than scholarly interpretation of Sacred
Writings.
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned from the collective
unconscience of odd bodkins sacramento - political pigsty of the western
world or a babys arm holding an apple
--
MarkA
(My OTHER sig line is clever)
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 01:23:40 PM |
|
|
Scientific evidence.
prove scientific evidence is a valid criteria
How would you prove the validity of science without using science itself?
try following that to its logical conclusion
there are no proofs
there are no universally accepted truths
you might be completely wrong about what you believe is true
and thats not a bad thing
The best you can say is that, as a method of understanding the physical
universe, science works better than scholarly interpretation of Sacred
Writings.
theres a difference between teaching science because its a useful tool
and teaching it because it -the truth-
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 10:55:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:23:40 -0800, mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Scientific evidence.
prove scientific evidence is a valid criteria
How would you prove the validity of science without using science itself?
try following that to its logical conclusion
there are no proofs
there are no universally accepted truths
you might be completely wrong about what you believe is true
Very true. The entire Universe may have been created 5 minutes ago.
Perhaps what you perceive as red everyone else perceives as green. How
would you know?
and thats not a bad thing
The best you can say is that, as a method of understanding the physical
universe, science works better than scholarly interpretation of Sacred
Writings.
theres a difference between teaching science because its a useful tool
and teaching it because it -the truth-
No, not really. We believe science is true because it works so well, and
we have no better alternative.
You can't make any intellectual headway without accepting that our
collective perception of reality is at least partially reliable. We use
science because it works, and we have no better way to measure "truth."
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned from the collective
unconscience of odd bodkins sacramento - political pigsty of the western
world or a babys arm holding an apple
--
MarkA
(This space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
| User: "nicco" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
26 Jan 2008 07:29:31 AM |
|
|
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:23:40 -0800, mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Scientific evidence.
prove scientific evidence is a valid criteria
How would you prove the validity of science without using science itself?
try following that to its logical conclusion
there are no proofs
there are no universally accepted truths
you might be completely wrong about what you believe is true
Very true. The entire Universe may have been created 5 minutes ago.
Perhaps what you perceive as red everyone else perceives as green. How
would you know?
and thats not a bad thing
The best you can say is that, as a method of understanding the physical
universe, science works better than scholarly interpretation of Sacred
Writings.
theres a difference between teaching science because its a useful tool
and teaching it because it -the truth-
No, not really. We believe science is true because it works so well, and
we have no better alternative.
You can't make any intellectual headway without accepting that our
collective perception of reality is at least partially reliable. We use
science because it works, and we have no better way to measure "truth."
True. The key word is "measure" and "replicate" that "truth."
Where science seems to falter is in personalizing,
i.e. interpreting infinitesimal parts of that measurable truth, or by
making declarative statements based on faulty
tools for measuring. Fortunately, the nature of most scientists is part
pitbull -- any challenge placed before them must survive
their gnawing grip.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
26 Jan 2008 07:48:07 AM |
|
|
In article <FAGmj.10296$q36.9466@newsfe14.lga>, nicco <nicco.polo@gmail.com>
wrote:
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:23:40 -0800, mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Scientific evidence.
prove scientific evidence is a valid criteria
How would you prove the validity of science without using science itself?
try following that to its logical conclusion
there are no proofs
there are no universally accepted truths
you might be completely wrong about what you believe is true
Very true. The entire Universe may have been created 5 minutes ago.
Perhaps what you perceive as red everyone else perceives as green. How
would you know?
and thats not a bad thing
The best you can say is that, as a method of understanding the physical
universe, science works better than scholarly interpretation of Sacred
Writings.
theres a difference between teaching science because its a useful tool
and teaching it because it -the truth-
No, not really. We believe science is true because it works so well, and
we have no better alternative.
You can't make any intellectual headway without accepting that our
collective perception of reality is at least partially reliable. We use
science because it works, and we have no better way to measure "truth."
True. The key word is "measure" and "replicate" that "truth."
Where science seems to falter is in personalizing,
i.e. interpreting infinitesimal parts of that measurable truth, or by
making declarative statements based on faulty
tools for measuring. Fortunately, the nature of most scientists is part
pitbull -- any challenge placed before them must survive
their gnawing grip.
remind me some day to explain the halting problem to you
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
| User: "nicco" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
27 Jan 2008 08:19:07 AM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
In article <FAGmj.10296$q36.9466@newsfe14.lga>, nicco <nicco.polo@gmail.com>
wrote:
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:23:40 -0800, mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Scientific evidence.
prove scientific evidence is a valid criteria
How would you prove the validity of science without using science itself?
try following that to its logical conclusion
there are no proofs
there are no universally accepted truths
you might be completely wrong about what you believe is true
Very true. The entire Universe may have been created 5 minutes ago.
Perhaps what you perceive as red everyone else perceives as green. How
would you know?
and thats not a bad thing
The best you can say is that, as a method of understanding the physical
universe, science works better than scholarly interpretation of Sacred
Writings.
theres a difference between teaching science because its a useful tool
and teaching it because it -the truth-
No, not really. We believe science is true because it works so well, and
we have no better alternative.
You can't make any intellectual headway without accepting that our
collective perception of reality is at least partially reliable. We use
science because it works, and we have no better way to measure "truth."
True. The key word is "measure" and "replicate" that "truth."
Where science seems to falter is in personalizing,
i.e. interpreting infinitesimal parts of that measurable truth, or by
making declarative statements based on faulty
tools for measuring. Fortunately, the nature of most scientists is part
pitbull -- any challenge placed before them must survive
their gnawing grip.
remind me some day to explain the halting problem to you
Doesn't sound promising.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
27 Jan 2008 09:19:37 AM |
|
|
In article <8p0nj.10780$M24.8274@newsfe17.lga>, nicco <nicco.polo@gmail.com>
wrote:
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
In article <FAGmj.10296$q36.9466@newsfe14.lga>, nicco
<nicco.polo@gmail.com>
wrote:
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:23:40 -0800, mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Scientific evidence.
prove scientific evidence is a valid criteria
How would you prove the validity of science without using science
itself?
try following that to its logical conclusion
there are no proofs
there are no universally accepted truths
you might be completely wrong about what you believe is true
Very true. The entire Universe may have been created 5 minutes ago.
Perhaps what you perceive as red everyone else perceives as green. How
would you know?
and thats not a bad thing
The best you can say is that, as a method of understanding the physical
universe, science works better than scholarly interpretation of Sacred
Writings.
theres a difference between teaching science because its a useful tool
and teaching it because it -the truth-
No, not really. We believe science is true because it works so well, and
we have no better alternative.
You can't make any intellectual headway without accepting that our
collective perception of reality is at least partially reliable. We use
science because it works, and we have no better way to measure "truth."
True. The key word is "measure" and "replicate" that "truth."
Where science seems to falter is in personalizing,
i.e. interpreting infinitesimal parts of that measurable truth, or by
making declarative statements based on faulty
tools for measuring. Fortunately, the nature of most scientists is part
pitbull -- any challenge placed before them must survive
their gnawing grip.
remind me some day to explain the halting problem to you
Doesn't sound promising.
assume you send a particle into a perfectly reflective cavity
of any possible shape
can you know if the particle will exit
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
| User: "nicco" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 07:35:04 AM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
In article <8p0nj.10780$M24.8274@newsfe17.lga>, nicco <nicco.polo@gmail.com>
wrote:
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
In article <FAGmj.10296$q36.9466@newsfe14.lga>, nicco
<nicco.polo@gmail.com>
wrote:
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:23:40 -0800, mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Scientific evidence.
prove scientific evidence is a valid criteria
How would you prove the validity of science without using science
itself?
try following that to its logical conclusion
there are no proofs
there are no universally accepted truths
you might be completely wrong about what you believe is true
Very true. The entire Universe may have been created 5 minutes ago.
Perhaps what you perceive as red everyone else perceives as green. How
would you know?
and thats not a bad thing
The best you can say is that, as a method of understanding the physical
universe, science works better than scholarly interpretation of Sacred
Writings.
theres a difference between teaching science because its a useful tool
and teaching it because it -the truth-
No, not really. We believe science is true because it works so well, and
we have no better alternative.
You can't make any intellectual headway without accepting that our
collective perception of reality is at least partially reliable. We use
science because it works, and we have no better way to measure "truth."
True. The key word is "measure" and "replicate" that "truth."
Where science seems to falter is in personalizing,
i.e. interpreting infinitesimal parts of that measurable truth, or by
making declarative statements based on faulty
tools for measuring. Fortunately, the nature of most scientists is part
pitbull -- any challenge placed before them must survive
their gnawing grip.
remind me some day to explain the halting problem to you
Doesn't sound promising.
assume you send a particle into a perfectly reflective cavity
of any possible shape
can you know if the particle will exit
Depends on the partic(u)le(r)s. I believe, as far as anyone knows,
photons cannot be coaxed to indulge in the vanity of a 'perfectly
reflective cavity'. But particle physics is not my field.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 10:35:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:35:04 -0500, nicco <nicco.polo@gmail.com>
wrote:
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
In article <8p0nj.10780$M24.8274@newsfe17.lga>, nicco <nicco.polo@gmail.com>
wrote:
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
In article <FAGmj.10296$q36.9466@newsfe14.lga>, nicco
<nicco.polo@gmail.com>
wrote:
MarkA wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:23:40 -0800, mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Scientific evidence.
prove scientific evidence is a valid criteria
How would you prove the validity of science without using science
itself?
try following that to its logical conclusion
there are no proofs
there are no universally accepted truths
you might be completely wrong about what you believe is true
Very true. The entire Universe may have been created 5 minutes ago.
Perhaps what you perceive as red everyone else perceives as green. How
would you know?
and thats not a bad thing
The best you can say is that, as a method of understanding the physical
universe, science works better than scholarly interpretation of Sacred
Writings.
theres a difference between teaching science because its a useful tool
and teaching it because it -the truth-
No, not really. We believe science is true because it works so well, and
we have no better alternative.
You can't make any intellectual headway without accepting that our
collective perception of reality is at least partially reliable. We use
science because it works, and we have no better way to measure "truth."
True. The key word is "measure" and "replicate" that "truth."
Where science seems to falter is in personalizing,
i.e. interpreting infinitesimal parts of that measurable truth, or by
making declarative statements based on faulty
tools for measuring. Fortunately, the nature of most scientists is part
pitbull -- any challenge placed before them must survive
their gnawing grip.
remind me some day to explain the halting problem to you
Doesn't sound promising.
assume you send a particle into a perfectly reflective cavity
of any possible shape
can you know if the particle will exit
Depends on the partic(u)le(r)s. I believe, as far as anyone knows,
photons cannot be coaxed to indulge in the vanity of a 'perfectly
reflective cavity'. But particle physics is not my field.
It is my field, and I can assure you that the answer to that specific
(but entirley artificial and hypothetical) question is "No".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ebataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 01:56:48 PM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Scientific evidence.
prove scientific evidence is a valid criteria
How would you prove the validity of science without using science itself?
try following that to its logical conclusion
there are no proofs
there are no universally accepted truths
you might be completely wrong about what you believe is true
and thats not a bad thing
The best you can say is that, as a method of understanding the physical
universe, science works better than scholarly interpretation of Sacred
Writings.
theres a difference between teaching science because its a useful tool
and teaching it because it -the truth-
Well, can you supply anything better for elucidating truths about reality?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
