| 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: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 04:34:55 PM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
In article <z26mj.2679$Sa1.1747@news02.roc.ny>,
ebataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Schools teach science. If you want to teach your kids myths, that's what
Sunday school is for. Scientists aren't trying to strong-arm their way
into your Sunday schools to teach the "other theories." Kindly return the
favor, and stop trying to get your religion taught in public schools.
so the people who pay for schools should not be allowed to decide what is
taught?
No! Not in the public school system anyway.
does any other aspect of democracy bother you?
Would you be happy if your kid had to attend a school that taught 2+2=5
for math?
wrong thing to say to someone who actually studied mathematics
symbols have no inherent meanings
it is quite easy to create such a system
here is an abelian group to do so
plus 0 1 2 5
0 5 0 1 2
1 0 1 2 5
2 1 2 5 0
5 2 5 0 1
and thus 2 plus 2 equals 5
Oh so you're going to push another number system? OK. Fine. No wonder we're
having trouble. You can define pizza to mean a square wooden board, but it won't
much help clarity of conversation.
Or taught in Chemistry that there were only 4 elements?
does that produce a useful model?
History...?
Would you be happy if your kid had to attend a school that taught that
Islam is the only true religion?
youve already made yourself a god
capable of deciding for everyone else what is reality and truth
and you are demanding our children attend schools
where you are taught as the only true religion
Hey, sorry, but reality *is*. If you don't like it that's fine by me.
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: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 04:45:25 PM |
|
|
Oh so you're going to push another number system? OK. Fine. No wonder we're
you could learn from it
unless youre a god you dont get to decide what reality is
you dont get to dictate what algebra we have to use
its subject to negotiation
having trouble. You can define pizza to mean a square wooden board, but it
won't
im not having trouble
much help clarity of conversation.
the problem is i am having metaconversation
and you cant cope with the abstractions
Hey, sorry, but reality *is*. If you don't like it that's fine by me.
not if youre doing so on my dime
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: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 06:55:10 PM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Oh so you're going to push another number system? OK. Fine. No wonder we're
you could learn from it
unless youre a god you dont get to decide what reality is
you dont get to dictate what algebra we have to use
its subject to negotiation
having trouble. You can define pizza to mean a square wooden board, but it
won't
im not having trouble
much help clarity of conversation.
the problem is i am having metaconversation
and you cant cope with the abstractions
I can cope with them just fine. Nonsequitors are another story.
Hey, sorry, but reality *is*. If you don't like it that's fine by me.
not if youre doing so on my dime
Ahhh, OK. So teach your reality on your dime, and don't pay your taxes. It's ok
by me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "gregvk" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
24 Jan 2008 02:04:20 PM |
|
|
ebataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in
news:z26mj.2679$Sa1.1747@news02.roc.ny:
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Schools teach science. If you want to teach your kids myths, that's
what Sunday school is for. Scientists aren't trying to strong-arm
their way into your Sunday schools to teach the "other theories."
Kindly return the favor, and stop trying to get your religion taught
in public schools.
so the people who pay for schools should not be allowed to decide
what is taught?
No! Not in the public school system anyway.
Would you be happy if your kid had to attend a school that taught
2+2=5 for math?
Or taught in Chemistry that there were only 4 elements?
Would you be happy if your kid had to attend a school that taught that
Islam is the only true religion?
If that person ever reproduces, I think it would be best if the child were
permanently locked in a stout cage and housed in a root cellar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
25 Jan 2008 12:40:58 AM |
|
|
On 24 Jan 2008 20:04:20 GMT, gregvk <greg@nospam.okthx> wrote:
ebataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in
news:z26mj.2679$Sa1.1747@news02.roc.ny:
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
Schools teach science. If you want to teach your kids myths, that's
what Sunday school is for. Scientists aren't trying to strong-arm
their way into your Sunday schools to teach the "other theories."
Kindly return the favor, and stop trying to get your religion taught
in public schools.
so the people who pay for schools should not be allowed to decide
what is taught?
No! Not in the public school system anyway.
Would you be happy if your kid had to attend a school that taught
2+2=5 for math?
Or taught in Chemistry that there were only 4 elements?
Would you be happy if your kid had to attend a school that taught that
Islam is the only true religion?
If that person ever reproduces, I think it would be best if the child were
permanently locked in a stout cage and housed in a root cellar.
I think it would be best if that happened to the PARENT.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 12:14:12 AM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, John Clancy McDonald
<""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> bloodied us up with this:
oEVOLUTION 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?
Dispute of evolution only comes from fundamentalist religious fruitcakes.
Do you know why? Because evolution proves Genesis to be wrong. And if
Genesis is wrong, there was no original sin. The whole of Western Religion
tumbles from there.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Johannson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? - Jabriol gets slapped down and ***** kicked again!!!!!!! |
21 Jan 2008 01:29:58 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A2BE235CD483vicman@207.115.17.102...
One fine day in alt.atheism, John Clancy McDonald (impersonated by psycho
JABRIOL)
<""kookwoman1\"@kooksof theworld.net"> bloodied us up with this:
f oEVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,f 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?
Dispute of evolution only comes from fundamentalist religious fruitcakes.
Do you know why? Because evolution proves Genesis to be wrong. And if
Genesis is wrong, there was no original sin. The whole of Western
Religion
tumbles from there.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 01:17:19 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns9A2BE235CD483vicman@207.115.17.102>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Dispute of evolution only comes from fundamentalist religious fruitcakes.
Do you know why? Because evolution proves Genesis to be wrong. And if
Genesis is wrong, there was no original sin. The whole of Western Religion
tumbles from there.
thereby demonstating to the world
you dont know what youre talking about
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: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 02:40:47 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, mariposas rand mair fheal
<mair_fheal@yahoo.com> bloodied us up with this:
In article <Xns9A2BE235CD483vicman@207.115.17.102>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Dispute of evolution only comes from fundamentalist religious
fruitcakes. Do you know why? Because evolution proves Genesis to be
wrong. And if Genesis is wrong, there was no original sin. The
whole of Western Religion tumbles from there.
thereby demonstating to the world
you dont know what youre talking about
Really? Do you have any evidence at all that supports the creation story
in Genesis? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your *****?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 03:04:48 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9A2C80FF2570Dvicman@207.115.17.102>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, mariposas rand mair fheal
<mair_fheal@yahoo.com> bloodied us up with this:
In article <Xns9A2BE235CD483vicman@207.115.17.102>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Dispute of evolution only comes from fundamentalist religious
fruitcakes. Do you know why? Because evolution proves Genesis to be
wrong. And if Genesis is wrong, there was no original sin. The
whole of Western Religion tumbles from there.
thereby demonstating to the world
you dont know what youre talking about
Really? Do you have any evidence at all that supports the creation story
in Genesis? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your *****?
really sucks for you that some churches teach accordance with darwins theory
i guess those arent real churches
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: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 06:26:19 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, mariposas rand mair fheal
<mair_fheal@yahoo.com> bloodied us up with this:
In article <Xns9A2C80FF2570Dvicman@207.115.17.102>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, mariposas rand mair fheal
<mair_fheal@yahoo.com> bloodied us up with this:
In article <Xns9A2BE235CD483vicman@207.115.17.102>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Dispute of evolution only comes from fundamentalist religious
fruitcakes. Do you know why? Because evolution proves Genesis to
be wrong. And if Genesis is wrong, there was no original sin.
The whole of Western Religion tumbles from there.
thereby demonstating to the world
you dont know what youre talking about
Really? Do you have any evidence at all that supports the creation
story in Genesis? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your *****?
really sucks for you that some churches teach accordance with darwins
theory
Why?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 06:31:36 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9A2CA73C516BCvicman@207.115.17.102>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, mariposas rand mair fheal
<mair_fheal@yahoo.com> bloodied us up with this:
In article <Xns9A2C80FF2570Dvicman@207.115.17.102>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, mariposas rand mair fheal
<mair_fheal@yahoo.com> bloodied us up with this:
In article <Xns9A2BE235CD483vicman@207.115.17.102>,
Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
Dispute of evolution only comes from fundamentalist religious
fruitcakes. Do you know why? Because evolution proves Genesis to
be wrong. And if Genesis is wrong, there was no original sin.
The whole of Western Religion tumbles from there.
thereby demonstating to the world
you dont know what youre talking about
Really? Do you have any evidence at all that supports the creation
story in Genesis? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your *****?
really sucks for you that some churches teach accordance with darwins
theory
Why?
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
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: "gregvk" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
21 Jan 2008 04:42:36 PM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mair_fheal-FA45E4.13044821012008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
Really? Do you have any evidence at all that supports the creation
story in Genesis? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your *****?
really sucks for you that some churches teach accordance with darwins
theory
Name a few.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Johannson" |
|
| Title: Is Evolution and the scientific method -what scientists really say- |
21 Jan 2008 04:49:52 PM |
|
|
, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: “I have
come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program.” Since it is not testable,
the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these definitions.
Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by
dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method.
Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method,
and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate
scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable
for metaphysical research.
Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not only
describes it but also shows its value: “The most important thing about
science is the scientific method—a way of thinking systematically, a way
of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting
experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under given
circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one’s own errors, a
way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is
constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific
method.”—Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly
happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them.
They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment could
prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this
reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the same
premises evolution also must be unscientific.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M.M. Martinson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and the scientific method -what scientists really say- |
22 Jan 2008 04:24:22 PM |
|
|
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ad23a3d-0f96-47a6-8047-7bca3740e8a1@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 5:49 pm, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCa...@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: "I have
come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program." Since it is not testable,
the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these definitions.
Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by
dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method.
Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method,
and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate
scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable
for metaphysical research.
Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not only
describes it but also shows its value: "The most important thing about
science is the scientific method--a way of thinking systematically, a way
of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting
experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under given
circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one's own errors, a
way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is
constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific
method."--Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly
happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them.
They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment could
prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this
reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the same
premises evolution also must be unscientific.
No. Creation assertions are wishful thinking, pure and simple.
Evolution is observable fact. If it happens now, it happened then.
Observed any gods lately?
He will not reply as you are dealing with JABRIOL impersonating other
posters. He has no argument. He just blindly copies and pastes from the
Watchtower CDs under other people's names. When he did reply, he got his *****
kicked every time. So now it all copy and paste.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \C" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and the scientific method -what scientists really say- |
22 Jan 2008 04:36:57 PM |
|
|
"M.M. Martinson" <mmm954@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:47966d18$0$1345$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ad23a3d-0f96-47a6-8047-7bca3740e8a1@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 5:49 pm, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCa...@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: "I
have
come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program." Since it is not
testable,
the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these
definitions.
Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by
dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method.
Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific
method,
and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate
scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but
suitable
for metaphysical research.
Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not
only
describes it but also shows its value: "The most important thing
about
science is the scientific method--a way of thinking systematically,
a way
of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting
experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under
given
circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one's own
errors, a
way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is
constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific
method."--Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or
allegedly
happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness
them.
They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment
could
prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this
reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the
same
premises evolution also must be unscientific.
No. Creation assertions are wishful thinking, pure and simple.
Evolution is observable fact. If it happens now, it happened then.
Observed any gods lately?
He will not reply as you are dealing with JABRIOL impersonating other
posters. He has no argument. He just blindly copies and pastes from
the
Watchtower CDs under other people's names. When he did reply, he got
his *****
kicked every time. So now it all copy and paste.
Witnesses? Thems the folks that believe that Jesus was Michael the
Archangel and hence are a CULT.
HJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "M.M. Martinson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and the scientific method -what scientists really say- |
22 Jan 2008 05:33:01 PM |
|
|
"John "C"" <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:LYSdnW3yvYFT7QvanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@centurytel.net...
"M.M. Martinson" <mmm954@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:47966d18$0$1345$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ad23a3d-0f96-47a6-8047-7bca3740e8a1@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 5:49 pm, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCa...@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: "I
have
come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program." Since it is not
testable,
the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these
definitions.
Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by
dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method.
Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific
method,
and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate
scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but
suitable
for metaphysical research.
Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not
only
describes it but also shows its value: "The most important thing
about
science is the scientific method--a way of thinking systematically,
a way
of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting
experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under
given
circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one's own
errors, a
way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is
constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific
method."--Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or
allegedly
happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness
them.
They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment
could
prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this
reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the
same
premises evolution also must be unscientific.
No. Creation assertions are wishful thinking, pure and simple.
Evolution is observable fact. If it happens now, it happened then.
Observed any gods lately?
He will not reply as you are dealing with JABRIOL impersonating other
posters. He has no argument. He just blindly copies and pastes from
the
Watchtower CDs under other people's names. When he did reply, he got
his *****
kicked every time. So now it all copy and paste.
Witnesses? Thems the folks that believe that Jesus was Michael the
Archangel and hence are a CULT.
That's exactly what they believe, along with the insanity that even JWs who
are twi-bit criminals like Jabriol get rewarded with eternal life in
Paradise.
HJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \C" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and the scientific method -what scientists really say- |
22 Jan 2008 05:52:00 PM |
|
|
"M.M. Martinson" <mmm954@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:47967d2f$0$1342$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"John "C"" <honestjohn@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:LYSdnW3yvYFT7QvanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@centurytel.net...
"M.M. Martinson" <mmm954@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:47966d18$0$1345$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ad23a3d-0f96-47a6-8047-7bca3740e8a1@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 5:49 pm, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCa...@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says:
"I
have
come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable
scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program." Since it is not
testable,
the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these
definitions.
Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only
by
dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific
method.
Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific
method,
and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a
legitimate
scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but
suitable
for metaphysical research.
Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that
not
only
describes it but also shows its value: "The most important thing
about
science is the scientific method--a way of thinking
systematically,
a way
of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting
experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under
given
circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one's own
errors, a
way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself
is
constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific
method."--Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or
allegedly
happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness
them.
They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific
experiment
could
prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to
this
reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by
the
same
premises evolution also must be unscientific.
No. Creation assertions are wishful thinking, pure and simple.
Evolution is observable fact. If it happens now, it happened
then.
Observed any gods lately?
He will not reply as you are dealing with JABRIOL impersonating
other
posters. He has no argument. He just blindly copies and pastes from
the
Watchtower CDs under other people's names. When he did reply, he
got
his *****
kicked every time. So now it all copy and paste.
Witnesses? Thems the folks that believe that Jesus was Michael the
Archangel and hence are a CULT.
That's exactly what they believe, along with the insanity that even
JWs who
are twi-bit criminals like Jabriol get rewarded with eternal life in
Paradise.
SHOCKING!
HJ
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Killiam" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and the scientific method -what scientists reallysay- |
22 Jan 2008 04:41:37 PM |
|
|
M.M. Martinson wrote:
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ad23a3d-0f96-47a6-8047-7bca3740e8a1@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 5:49 pm, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCa...@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: "I have
come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program." Since it is not testable,
the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these definitions.
Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by
dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method.
Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method,
and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate
scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable
for metaphysical research.
Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not only
describes it but also shows its value: "The most important thing about
science is the scientific method--a way of thinking systematically, a
way
of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting
experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under given
circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one's own errors, a
way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is
constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific
method."--Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly
happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them.
They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment could
prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this
reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the same
premises evolution also must be unscientific.
No. Creation assertions are wishful thinking, pure and simple.
Evolution is observable fact. If it happens now, it happened then.
Observed any gods lately?
He will not reply as you are dealing with JABRIOL impersonating other
posters. He has no argument. He just blindly copies and pastes from the
Watchtower CDs under other people's names. When he did reply, he got his
***** kicked every time. So now it all copy and paste.
Jabriol Jabriol everywhere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and the scientific method -what scientists really say- |
22 Jan 2008 05:37:42 PM |
|
|
"Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
news:fn5rf5$h8q$1@news.albasani.net...
M.M. Martinson wrote:
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ad23a3d-0f96-47a6-8047-7bca3740e8a1@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 5:49 pm, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCa...@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: "I have
come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program." Since it is not testable,
the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these definitions.
Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by
dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method.
Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method,
and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate
scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable
for metaphysical research.
Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not
only
describes it but also shows its value: "The most important thing about
science is the scientific method--a way of thinking systematically, a
way
of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting
experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under given
circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one's own errors,
a
way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is
constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific
method."--Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly
happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them.
They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment
could
prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this
reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the
same
premises evolution also must be unscientific.
No. Creation assertions are wishful thinking, pure and simple.
Evolution is observable fact. If it happens now, it happened then.
Observed any gods lately?
He will not reply as you are dealing with JABRIOL impersonating other
posters. He has no argument. He just blindly copies and pastes from the
Watchtower CDs under other people's names. When he did reply, he got his
***** kicked every time. So now it all copy and paste.
Jabriol Jabriol everywhere.
But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living black
puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less that your fancy
carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep well at night.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and the scientific method -what scientists really say- |
22 Jan 2008 06:06:27 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <kooks@bluejedi.net> wrote in message
news:fn5uod$o7k$1@news.albasani.net...
But what do you care, I am just a low ghetto welfare living black
puerto rican scum of the earth whose value is less that your fancy
carp in your ponds... I hope you all sleep well at night.
Of course carp are worth more than you. You're a lying parasitic scumbag and
nothing but welfare trash.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Johannson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and the scientific method -what scientists really say- |
22 Jan 2008 05:38:46 PM |
|
|
"Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
news:fn5rf5$h8q$1@news.albasani.net...
M.M. Martinson wrote:
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ad23a3d-0f96-47a6-8047-7bca3740e8a1@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 5:49 pm, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCa...@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: "I have
come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program." Since it is not testable,
the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these definitions.
Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by
dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method.
Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method,
and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate
scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but suitable
for metaphysical research.
Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not
only
describes it but also shows its value: "The most important thing about
science is the scientific method--a way of thinking systematically, a
way
of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting
experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under given
circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one's own errors,
a
way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is
constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific
method."--Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or allegedly
happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them.
They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment
could
prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this
reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the
same
premises evolution also must be unscientific.
No. Creation assertions are wishful thinking, pure and simple.
Evolution is observable fact. If it happens now, it happened then.
Observed any gods lately?
He will not reply as you are dealing with JABRIOL impersonating other
posters. He has no argument. He just blindly copies and pastes from the
Watchtower CDs under other people's names. When he did reply, he got his
***** kicked every time. So now it all copy and paste.
Jabriol Jabriol everywhere.
Hey Jabbers, your wife still giving blow jobs behind the Kingdom Hall for
$3?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Killiam" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and the scientific method -what scientists really say- |
22 Jan 2008 07:04:54 PM |
|
|
"Mike Johannson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:fn5uil$2gu$1@stable.tornevall.net...
"Killiam" <anothercarol@sock.net> wrote in message
news:fn5rf5$h8q$1@news.albasani.net...
M.M. Martinson wrote:
"Wexford" <wryan77@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ad23a3d-0f96-47a6-8047-7bca3740e8a1@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 21, 5:49 pm, Mike Johannson
<tranvestiteCa...@kooksoftheworld.net> wrote:
, Dr. Popper applies this same criterion to evolution. He says: "I
have
come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program." Since it is not
testable,
the evolutionary theory is not science, according to these
definitions.
Not observable, not demonstratable by experiment, supported only by
dogmatic assertions, it is not verifiable by the scientific method.
Dr. Popper is highly respected for his study of the scientific method,
and based on this method he finds evolution wanting as a legitimate
scientific theory. Rather, he finds it to be, not science, but
suitable
for metaphysical research.
Norman Cousins gives a definition of the scientific method that not
only
describes it but also shows its value: "The most important thing about
science is the scientific method--a way of thinking systematically, a
way
of assembling evidence and appraising it, a way of conducting
experiments so as to predict accurately what will happen under given
circumstances, a way of ascertaining and recognizing one's own errors,
a
way of finding the fallacies of long-held ideas. Science itself is
constantly changing, largely as a result of the scientific
method."--Anatomy of an Illness, pp. 120, 121.
Both evolution and creation describe events that happened, or
allegedly
happened, in the past. No human observers were there to witness them.
They cannot be recreated in a laboratory. No scientific experiment
could
prove or disprove either evolution or creation. According to this
reasoning, if the Bible account of creation is unscientific, by the
same
premises evolution also must be unscientific.
No. Creation assertions are wishful thinking, pure and simple.
Evolution is observable fact. If it happens now, it happened then.
Observed any gods lately?
He will not reply as you are dealing with JABRIOL impersonating other
posters. He has no argument. He just blindly copies and pastes from the
Watchtower CDs under other people's names. When he did reply, he got his
***** kicked every time. So now it all copy and paste.
Jabriol Jabriol everywhere.
Hey Jabbers, your wife still giving blow jobs behind the Kingdom Hall for
$3?
She down to $2 last I heard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mikail Steiner" |
|
| Title: Argumentun ad personam Re: Is Evolution and the scientific method-what scientists really say- |
23 Jan 2008 04:50:01 AM |
|
|
Killiam wrote:
Hey Jabbers, your wife still giving blow jobs behind the Kingdom Hall
for $3?
She down to $2 last I heard.
Is this is how a debate on evolution and creation is discussed?
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant
personal premises about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully
distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.
Therefore it seems that this Jabriol may have valid points and her
opponents wants to distract, due to lack of any sort of intelligent
reply. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby
subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject and
bust the thread.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem
abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or
personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit
that argument. It is usually performed by individual whose education is
limited or intellectually challenged. Me being a man of God have always
considered atheists very well informed and educated however after
reading these attacks and others such attacks against the same
individual has me wondering the power of the individual "Jabbers" has in
these news groups. The constant attacks including the supplication to
not reply to this Jabriol has convince me of this. I hope this is just a
minority of individuals resorting to this tool of ad hominen.
Mikail Steiner PHP
Church of God Awaiting Princeton NJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?B?fiBT5GJs6yB+?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Argumentun ad personam Re: Is Evolution and the scientific method -what scientists really say- |
23 Jan 2008 03:01:33 PM |
|
|
"Mikail Steiner" <templeground@vicars.net> wrote in message
news:tZElj.18212$k15.6330@trnddc06...
Killiam wrote:
Hey Jabbers, your wife still giving blow jobs behind the Kingdom Hall
for $3?
She down to $2 last I heard.
Is this is how a debate on evolution and creation is discussed?
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant
personal premises about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully
distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.
What else can you expect from Jabriol, the infamous Jehovah's Witness who
keeps frogging other posters and has no answers for those who are atheists
or believe in evolution?
--
SA............
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ips-Switch" |
|
| Title: Re: Argumentun ad personam Re: "Mikail Steiner" is another Jabriol sock: |
23 Jan 2008 03:07:37 PM |
|
|
"Mikail Steiner" is just another Jabriol sock:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.213.205
X-Trace: trnddc06 1201085401 151.204.213.205 (Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:50:01 EST)
Looks like you lost your latest NSP account Jabbers. To many nym shifts
again?
"Mikail Steiner" <templeground@vicars.net> wrote in message
news:tZElj.18212$k15.6330@trnddc06...
Killiam wrote:
Hey Jabbers, your wife still giving blow jobs behind the Kingdom Hall
for $3?
She down to $2 last I heard.
snip typical jabber bullcrap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Probe Buster" |
|
| Title: Re: Argumentun ad personam Re: "Mikail Steiner" is another Jabriol |
23 Jan 2008 05:16:45 PM |
|
|
Paranoid Carol? everyone is Jabriol.
Face the music, Mikail Steiner is right. And anybody who is right, you
call them "Jabriol"
You are sweating behind the keyboard making a tremendous effort to have
people not reply to a Jabriol thread. why is that? However you can't
even prove Jabriol is posting those threads eh? More so when you post a
Jabriol 90% of time.
Truth is as Steiner says, all you spew is filth. You wallow in it. Your
husband who watches child pron wallows in it. And it is surprising that
people like Christopher Lee and Wombat support human trailer trash like you.
Ips-Switch wrote:
"Mikail Steiner" is just another Jabriol sock:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.204.213.205
X-Trace: trnddc06 1201085401 151.204.213.205 (Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:50:01
EST)
Looks like you lost your latest NSP account Jabbers. To many nym shifts
again?
"Mikail Steiner" <templeground@vicars.net> wrote in message
news:tZElj.18212$k15.6330@trnddc06...
Killiam wrote:
Hey Jabbers, your wife still giving blow jobs behind the Kingdom
Hall for $3?
She down to $2 last I heard.
snip typical jabber bullcrap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Johannson" |
|
| Title: Re: Argumentun ad personam Re: "Mikail Steiner" is another Jabriol sock: |
23 Jan 2008 08:37:33 PM |
|
|
"Probe Buster" aka JABRIOL aka Antonio (sociopathic Jehovah's
Witness)<takaya@dingo.org> wrote in message
news:fn8ht2$bda$1@news.albasani.net...
Paranoid Carol? everyone is Jabriol.
All anyone has to do Antonio is look at the headers to know it's YOU with
yet another nym to bypass killfiles and hide from the elders you lied to and
laughed at. Nym shifting doesn't hide you as they think it does. Most
regulars can tell by your poor English and obsession with Carol that it's
you with yet another sock or impersonation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Argumentun ad personam Re: "Mikail Steiner" is another Jabriol sock: |
23 Jan 2008 05:29:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:16:45 -0500, Probe Buster <takaya@dingo.org>
wrote:
Paranoid Carol? everyone is Jabriol.
Face the music, Mikail Steiner is right. And anybody who is right, you
call them "Jabriol"
You give yourself away every time.
What an advertisement for your relihion you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: Argumentun ad personam Re: "Mikail Steiner" is another Jabriol sock: |
23 Jan 2008 08:39:56 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:scjfp3l5f5qv8f2gbk7m2ugjfungt364l5@4ax.com...
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:16:45 -0500, Probe Buster aka
**JABRIOL**<takaya@dingo.org>
wrote:
Paranoid Carol? everyone is Jabriol.
Face the music, Mikail Steiner is right. And anybody who is right, you
call them "Jabriol"
You give yourself away every time.
What an advertisement for your relihion you are.
Like we don't know he's agreeing with his own sock puppet "Mikail Steiner."
LOL!!! :-D
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
