| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Jul 2004 09:49:21 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
(MurphyInOhio) wrote in message news:<murphy-20040725034719.18077.00000531@mb-m03.wmconnect.com>...
Mivart was "Darwin's arch rival," the only opponent Darwin didn't forgive.
Because Mivart attacked one of Darwin's sons in print.
mdotco
Mivart also published a devastasting analysis of Origin that caused Darwin
untold anguish, and necessitated another rewrite with a chapter added largely
to try and rebut SGM. Btw, Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have
never been answered by evolutionists.
[MiO]"Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have never been
answered by evolutionists." Evolutionists only provide answers to
_new_ criticisms of evolution. There naturally hasn't been any _new_
criticisms of evolution since 1859.
.
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
26 Jul 2004 03:56:34 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407251856.e800c7c@posting.google.com>...
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio) wrote in message news:<murphy-20040725034719.18077.00000531@mb-m03.wmconnect.com>...
Mivart was "Darwin's arch rival," the only opponent Darwin didn't forgive.
Because Mivart attacked one of Darwin's sons in print.
mdotco
Mivart also published a devastasting analysis of Origin that caused Darwin
untold anguish, and necessitated another rewrite with a chapter added largely
to try and rebut SGM. Btw, Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have
never been answered by evolutionists.
[MiO]"Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have never been
answered by evolutionists." Evolutionists only provide answers to
_new_ criticisms of evolution. There naturally hasn't been any _new_
criticisms of evolution since 1859.
So Christian fascist historian, David ford, is going to publish in
peer reviewed Biology journals?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
26 Jul 2004 03:26:54 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407251856.e800c7c@posting.google.com>...
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio) wrote in message news:<murphy-20040725034719.18077.00000531@mb-m03.wmconnect.com>...
Mivart was "Darwin's arch rival," the only opponent Darwin didn't forgive.
Because Mivart attacked one of Darwin's sons in print.
mdotco
Mivart also published a devastasting analysis of Origin that caused Darwin
untold anguish, and necessitated another rewrite with a chapter added largely
to try and rebut SGM. Btw, Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have
never been answered by evolutionists.
[MiO]"Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have never been
answered by evolutionists." Evolutionists only provide answers to
_new_ criticisms of evolution. There naturally hasn't been any _new_
criticisms of evolution since 1859.
Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that no creationist on ID'er has
ever produced a criticism of evolution.
Incidentally, do you think that developments in evolutionary theory
stopped in 1859?
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
26 Jul 2004 07:36:10 PM |
|
|
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0407260034.42c62134@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407251856.e800c7c@posting.google.com>...
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio) wrote in message news:<murphy-20040725034719.18077.00000531@mb-m03.wmconnect.com>...
Mivart was "Darwin's arch rival," the only opponent Darwin didn't forgive.
Because Mivart attacked one of Darwin's sons in print.
mdotco
Mivart also published a devastasting analysis of Origin that caused Darwin
untold anguish, and necessitated another rewrite with a chapter added largely
to try and rebut SGM. Btw, Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have
never been answered by evolutionists.
[MiO]"Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have never been
answered by evolutionists." Evolutionists only provide answers to
_new_ criticisms of evolution. There naturally hasn't been any _new_
criticisms of evolution since 1859.
Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that no creationist on ID'er has
ever produced a criticism of evolution.
You're welcome.
Incidentally, do you think that developments in evolutionary theory
stopped in 1859?
Absolutely not: evolutionary theory has evolved since 1859, as more
and more things need to be explained by it. For example, evolutionary
theory can account for the tendency of men to hesitate to ask for
driving directions when they are completely lost. Darwin could not
have foreseen that automobiles would appear around 1900, precipitating
this conundrum which evolutionary theory easily solves. If women
tended to hesitate to ask for driving directions, or if men readily
stooped to asking for driving directions, evolutionary theory could
account for these alternative situations just as easily. Evolutionary
theory is extremely powerful in explaining numerous sorts of
situations, as well as their completely-opposite states of affairs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Vreeland" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
27 Jul 2004 04:55:19 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407261643.45fa88fb@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0407260034.42c62134@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Incidentally, do you think that developments in evolutionary theory
stopped in 1859?
Absolutely not: evolutionary theory has evolved since 1859, as more
and more things need to be explained by it. For example, evolutionary
theory can account for the tendency of men to hesitate to ask for
driving directions when they are completely lost. Darwin could not
have foreseen that automobiles would appear around 1900, precipitating
this conundrum which evolutionary theory easily solves. If women
tended to hesitate to ask for driving directions, or if men readily
stooped to asking for driving directions, evolutionary theory could
account for these alternative situations just as easily. Evolutionary
theory is extremely powerful in explaining numerous sorts of
situations, as well as their completely-opposite states of affairs.
Any theory can be misapplied by dilletantes. I am always highly
skeptical of these pop-scientific spoutings when I hear them (usually
on NPR, as it happens). All you suggest here is that you do not
understand evolutionary theory or how to apply it yourself, which
implies that you don't know what you are talking about.
But feel free to provide evidence to the contrary by describing
behaviors that could or could not have been produced by natural
selection.
Jack V
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
27 Jul 2004 06:15:04 PM |
|
|
(John Vreeland) wrote in message news:<c66035b2.0407270202.450df910@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407261643.45fa88fb@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0407260034.42c62134@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Incidentally, do you think that developments in evolutionary theory
stopped in 1859?
Absolutely not: evolutionary theory has evolved since 1859, as more
and more things need to be explained by it. For example, evolutionary
theory can account for the tendency of men to hesitate to ask for
driving directions when they are completely lost. Darwin could not
have foreseen that automobiles would appear around 1900, precipitating
this conundrum which evolutionary theory easily solves. If women
tended to hesitate to ask for driving directions, or if men readily
stooped to asking for driving directions, evolutionary theory could
account for these alternative situations just as easily. Evolutionary
theory is extremely powerful in explaining numerous sorts of
situations, as well as their completely-opposite states of affairs.
Any theory can be misapplied by dilletantes.
Can any theory be misapplied by non-dilletantes?
I am always highly
skeptical of these pop-scientific spoutings when I hear them (usually
on NPR, as it happens).
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims.
All you suggest here is that you do not
understand evolutionary theory or how to apply it yourself, which
implies that you don't know what you are talking about.
But feel free to provide evidence to the contrary by describing
behaviors that could or could not have been produced by natural
selection.
I cannot think of any behavior that could not have been produced by
natural selection, given the appropriate raw material for natural
selection to work upon.
I cannot think of any behavior that could have been produced by
natural selection, given an absence of the appropriate raw material
for natural selection to work upon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "agray" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
28 Jul 2004 02:35:12 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Vreejack@hotmail.com (John Vreeland) wrote in message
news:<c66035b2.0407270202.450df910@posting.google.com>...
I've been watching this thread for a while, trying to figure out where ford
is coming from....
I am always highly
skeptical of these pop-scientific spoutings when I hear them (usually
on NPR, as it happens).
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims.
...ah! Now I know. He's either a misguided fool (like the people who
jumped on the whole "Cold Fusion" bandwagon in the 90's) or is trying to
attack science from the inside.
Skepticism is what makes a scientist a scientist.
--
"By this logic, teaching anti-discrimination against ethnic minorities is
going to turn white people black." --OrangeSFO on rec.gambling.poker
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
28 Jul 2004 10:31:57 PM |
|
|
agray <aSgPrAaMy@bitusmeus.com> wrote in message news:<ce8vjm05db@news4.newsguy.com>...
david ford wrote:
Vreejack@hotmail.com (John Vreeland) wrote in message news:<c66035b2.0407270202.450df910@posting.google.com>...
I've been watching this thread for a while, trying to figure out where ford
is coming from....
I am always highly
skeptical of these pop-scientific spoutings when I hear them (usually
on NPR, as it happens).
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims.
..ah! Now I know. He's either a misguided fool (like the people who
jumped on the whole "Cold Fusion" bandwagon in the 90's) or is trying to
attack science from the inside.
Skepticism is what makes a scientist a scientist.
Scientists that do science do not incorporate any metaphysical
assumptions into their research. Suppose a scientist investigates a
particular claim. That scientist conducts research, and even if that
scientist is influenced by his/her worldview in going about that
research, that worldview is eventually washed away by the process of
peer-review. What we're left with is science-- science-based claims.
The only thing that matters is that any data a scientist derives from
experimentation, and any conclusions a scientist reaches, will need to
stand the tests of time and peer-review if they are to be considered
empirical evidence.
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims that have
*stood the tests of time and peer-review*. Evolution and spontaneous
generation are science-based claims that have done exactly that--
stood the tests of time and peer-review-- and it could only be
insanity or psychosis that would lead someone to be skeptical of the
overwhelming scientific empirical evidence for the scientific fact of
evolution and the scientific fact of spontaneous generation.
Adherence to science-based claims that have stood the tests of time
and peer-review is what makes a scientist a scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
29 Jul 2004 10:11:47 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407281939.24c949d2@posting.google.com...
agray <aSgPrAaMy@bitusmeus.com> wrote in message
news:<ce8vjm05db@news4.newsguy.com>...
david ford wrote:
Vreejack@hotmail.com (John Vreeland) wrote in message
news:<c66035b2.0407270202.450df910@posting.google.com>...
I've been watching this thread for a while, trying to figure out where
ford
is coming from....
I am always highly
skeptical of these pop-scientific spoutings when I hear them (usually
on NPR, as it happens).
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims.
..ah! Now I know. He's either a misguided fool (like the people who
jumped on the whole "Cold Fusion" bandwagon in the 90's) or is trying to
attack science from the inside.
Skepticism is what makes a scientist a scientist.
Scientists that do science do not incorporate any metaphysical
assumptions into their research. Suppose a scientist investigates a
particular claim. That scientist conducts research, and even if that
scientist is influenced by his/her worldview in going about that
research, that worldview is eventually washed away by the process of
peer-review. What we're left with is science-- science-based claims.
The only thing that matters is that any data a scientist derives from
experimentation, and any conclusions a scientist reaches, will need to
stand the tests of time and peer-review if they are to be considered
empirical evidence.
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims that have
*stood the tests of time and peer-review*. Evolution and spontaneous
generation are science-based claims that have done exactly that--
stood the tests of time and peer-review-- and it could only be
insanity or psychosis that would lead someone to be skeptical of the
overwhelming scientific empirical evidence for the scientific fact of
evolution and the scientific fact of spontaneous generation.
Just knowledge and expertise. Skepticism based on ignorance
and wishful thinking is a nonstarter.
Adherence to science-based claims that have stood the tests of time
and peer-review is what makes a scientist a scientist.
Maybe I am not scientist material.
Time to hand in the decoder ring!
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "agray" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
29 Jul 2004 12:23:39 PM |
|
|
Apparently I misunderstood you from the beginning...
david ford wrote:
agray <aSgPrAaMy@bitusmeus.com> wrote in message
news:<ce8vjm05db@news4.newsguy.com>...
david ford wrote:
Vreejack@hotmail.com (John Vreeland) wrote in message
news:<c66035b2.0407270202.450df910@posting.google.com>...
I've been watching this thread for a while, trying to figure out where
ford is coming from....
I am always highly
skeptical of these pop-scientific spoutings when I hear them (usually
on NPR, as it happens).
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims.
I took this statement to be a lead-in to a straw-man attack on the nature of
science itself (i.e. "you can't question it, it's science!"). What happens
after this point is probably just semantic, but...
Skepticism is what makes a scientist a scientist.
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims that have
*stood the tests of time and peer-review*.
This last clause wasn't in the original statement, and makes all the
difference in the world. Apologies if it was intended to be assumed. If
so, I missed it.
However, I'll put on my nit-picky hat and say that regardless of the
"acceptedness" of an argument or claim (which would imply an appeal to
popularity) a scientist new to a particular field should remain skeptical
of even the most closely held claims until he/she has absorbed the body of
work and reached his/her own conclusions. Widely held, accepted and
peer-reviewed claims of science are often found to be false later. The
theory of Evolution -- no matter how unlikely to suffer this fate -- is not
immune to critical review.
Evolution and spontaneous
generation are science-based claims that have done exactly that--
stood the tests of time and peer-review-- and it could only be
insanity or psychosis that would lead someone to be skeptical of the
overwhelming scientific empirical evidence for the scientific fact of
evolution and the scientific fact of spontaneous generation.
Uh, maybe a semantic issue again. You seem to be using "sketpical" to imply
doubt or opposition. I use it to mean "not convinced and will not receive
my sanction until I'm satisfied with the body of knowledge". No scientist
new to a field -- any field -- should accept on faith any claims within
that field until he/she has reviewed enough of the material to be satisfied
that the science is good. Now, given the overwhelming volume of evidence
in favor of evolution, that level of satisfaction is probably achieved in
undergraduate biology classes, but is no less important.
Recently I read an article about a theory of gravity alternative to Newton's
that the author claims is better at explaining certain things than Newton
and Einstein are. His proposition is that the 'superstructure' of the
universe exerts pressure on all bodies uniformly in all directions. The
reason we "stick" to a planet is that it effectively shields us from
pressure from the other side.
Now regardless of how silly that might sound, I wouldn't call the guy
"psychotic" or "insane" for being skeptical of Newton & Einstein. There
are (or should be) exactly zero sacred cows in the science world, and some
degree of skepticism should be applied universally.
andy gray
--
"By this logic, teaching anti-discrimination against ethnic minorities is
going to turn white people black." --OrangeSFO on rec.gambling.poker
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
29 Jul 2004 08:32:54 PM |
|
|
agray <aSgPrAaMy@bitusmeus.com> wrote in message news:<cebc9s02q4u@news3.newsguy.com>...
Apparently I misunderstood you from the beginning...
The universe didn't have a beginning-- matter has existed since time
immemorial, and time and the universe didn't have a beginning in the
big bang.
Matter preceded the appearance of mind. Science has demonstrated all
this to be the case.
david ford wrote:
agray <aSgPrAaMy@bitusmeus.com> wrote in message news:<ce8vjm05db@news4.newsguy.com>...
david ford wrote:
Vreejack@hotmail.com (John Vreeland) wrote in message news:<c66035b2.0407270202.450df910@posting.google.com>...
I've been watching this thread for a while, trying to figure out where
ford is coming from....
I am always highly
skeptical of these pop-scientific spoutings when I hear them (usually
on NPR, as it happens).
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims.
I took this statement to be a lead-in to a straw-man attack on the nature of
science itself (i.e. "you can't question it, it's science!"). What happens
after this point is probably just semantic, but...
Skepticism is what makes a scientist a scientist.
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims that have
*stood the tests of time and peer-review*.
This last clause wasn't in the original statement, and makes all the
difference in the world. Apologies if it was intended to be assumed. If
so, I missed it.
I thank Robert for recently bringing to my attention the importance of
the tests of time and peer-review, and the fact that even if a
scientist is influenced by his/her worldview in going about research,
that worldview is eventually washed away by the process of
peer-review. The claim that life can come from non-life has stood the
tests of time and peer-review. The theory of spontaneous generation
has been so well-confirmed by massive quantities of experimental data
that it really should be called not a "theory" but rather the *fact*
of spontaneous generation. The fact of spontaneous generation is as
much a fact as the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun.
However, I'll put on my nit-picky hat and say that regardless of the
"acceptedness" of an argument or claim (which would imply an appeal to
popularity) a scientist new to a particular field should remain skeptical
of even the most closely held claims until he/she has absorbed the body of
work and reached his/her own conclusions.
Maybe. This sounds like a lot of work, though. It would probably be
more efficient to simply accept the popular consensus.
Widely held, accepted and
peer-reviewed claims of science are often found to be false later.
I'm not familiar with any such claims. Supposing what you say is
correct, those claims found later to be false didn't stand the test of
time.
The
theory of Evolution -- no matter how unlikely to suffer this fate -- is not
immune to critical review.
Neither is the claim that the earth goes around the sun immune to
critical review. Nevertheless, the fact of heliocentricity, the fact
of evolution, and the fact of spontaneous generation are *highly*
unlikely to be later found to be false. The positive experimental and
observational scientific evidence in support of these scientific facts
is simply *overwhelming*.
Evolution and spontaneous
generation are science-based claims that have done exactly that--
stood the tests of time and peer-review-- and it could only be
insanity or psychosis that would lead someone to be skeptical of the
overwhelming scientific empirical evidence for the scientific fact of
evolution and the scientific fact of spontaneous generation.
Uh, maybe a semantic issue again. You seem to be using "sketpical" to imply
doubt or opposition. I use it to mean "not convinced and will not receive
my sanction until I'm satisfied with the body of knowledge". No scientist
new to a field -- any field -- should accept on faith any claims within
that field until he/she has reviewed enough of the material to be satisfied
that the science is good.
I do not know if I agree, and will have to think about this.
Now, given the overwhelming volume of evidence
in favor of evolution, that level of satisfaction is probably achieved in
undergraduate biology classes, but is no less important.
Recently I read an article about a theory of gravity alternative to Newton's
that the author claims is better at explaining certain things than Newton
and Einstein are. His proposition is that the 'superstructure' of the
universe exerts pressure on all bodies uniformly in all directions. The
reason we "stick" to a planet is that it effectively shields us from
pressure from the other side.
Now regardless of how silly that might sound, I wouldn't call the guy
"psychotic" or "insane" for being skeptical of Newton & Einstein.
I say let's put the guy's theory to the test. Does his theory's
predictions match up with observation better than Einstein's general
theory of relativity (GTR)? The fact of evolution and the fact of
spontaneous generation make numerous hard/definite predictions just as
Einstein's GTR does, and they have been confirmed by every new
experimental test scientists throw the way of the fact of evolution
and the fact of spontaneous generation.
There
are (or should be) exactly zero sacred cows in the science world, and some
degree of skepticism should be applied universally.
Certain people may think that the Earth doesn't go around the sun, but
I would sure feel sorry for them if they tried to disprove the
heliocentric model. Likewise, IDiot creationists believe that they
aren't the end product of spontaneous generation and evolution, but I
feel sorry for them when they try-- pathetically-- to disprove the
scientific fact of evolution and the scientific fact of spontaneous
generation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
30 Jul 2004 01:44:48 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 01:32:54 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
agray <aSgPrAaMy@bitusmeus.com> wrote in message news:<cebc9s02q4u@news3.newsguy.com>...
Apparently I misunderstood you from the beginning...
The universe didn't have a beginning-- matter has existed since time
immemorial, and time and the universe didn't have a beginning in the
big bang.
Matter preceded the appearance of mind. Science has demonstrated all
this to be the case.
Now David goes and sulks in that special way. My my, but aren't we getting
a little cranky.
I know of no version of Big Bang cosmology that says matter has existed
"time immemorial" (a term I can't recall being used either). As to this
"mind" thing, am I right in guessing that this is some sort of preparation
for you to start handwaving in a first cause argument? What is "mind",
David? Is it a code word for God? If it is, then why not just say God, or
does that sort of ***** up the rhetoric, so to speak?
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "agray" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
02 Aug 2004 11:10:27 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
agray <aSgPrAaMy@bitusmeus.com> wrote in message
news:<cebc9s02q4u@news3.newsguy.com>...
a scientist new to a particular field should remain
skeptical of even the most closely held claims until he/she has absorbed
the body of work and reached his/her own conclusions.
Maybe. This sounds like a lot of work, though. It would probably be
more efficient to simply accept the popular consensus.
This is an appeal to authority. At some point, for any change to occur,
someone must challenge widely held beliefs -- no matter how much perceived
authority there is behind them.
At any rate, as I said in my previous post, for most scientists in the
evolution field, the point of applying their own judgement to accept the
established opinion probably happens in undergraduate study -- due to the
immense volume of favorable science.
Widely held, accepted and
peer-reviewed claims of science are often found to be false later.
I'm not familiar with any such claims.
"Java man", the "brontosaurus", Lamarckism, Phrenology. Medicine and
anthropology are chock-full of examples as well.
Supposing what you say is
correct, those claims found later to be false didn't stand the test of
time.
This is a reduction to absurdity. At any moment, a theory that remains
valid has "stood the test of time". The instant it is shown to be invalid,
it has "failed to stand the test of time". If Evolution is somehow
proven hoplelessly unworkable tomorrow, it will have "failed to stand the
test of time".
The
theory of Evolution -- no matter how unlikely to suffer this fate -- is
not immune to critical review.
Neither is the claim that the earth goes around the sun immune to
critical review. Nevertheless, the fact of heliocentricity, the fact
of evolution, and the fact of spontaneous generation are *highly*
unlikely to be later found to be false. The positive experimental and
observational scientific evidence in support of these scientific facts
is simply *overwhelming*.
Well, I did say I was being nit-picky. But IMO it's an important
distinction. No idea or theory, no matter how widely held or accepted, is
immune to critical review.
No
scientist new to a field -- any field -- should accept on faith any
claims within that field until he/she has reviewed enough of the material
to be satisfied that the science is good.
I do not know if I agree, and will have to think about this.
Again, for clarification, I'm not suggesting that each new scientist must
re-do all the work in that field before accepting established theories.
I'm just saying that each scientist must use his/her judgement -- not
arguments from authority or antiquity.
Recently I read an article about a theory of gravity alternative to
Newton's that the author claims is better at explaining certain things
than Newton and Einstein are. His proposition is that the
'superstructure' of the
universe exerts pressure on all bodies uniformly in all directions. The
reason we "stick" to a planet is that it effectively shields us from
pressure from the other side.
Now regardless of how silly that might sound, I wouldn't call the guy
"psychotic" or "insane" for being skeptical of Newton & Einstein.
I say let's put the guy's theory to the test. Does his theory's
predictions match up with observation better than Einstein's general
theory of relativity (GTR)? The fact of evolution and the fact of
spontaneous generation make numerous hard/definite predictions just as
Einstein's GTR does, and they have been confirmed by every new
experimental test scientists throw the way of the fact of evolution
and the fact of spontaneous generation.
My point is that this person did not have to be insane or psychotic (as you
stated earlier would be required of anyone to question the theory of
evolution) in order to question the established science in this field. He
is most likely wrong, comically or even tragically so. But not a fool or a
loony.
There
are (or should be) exactly zero sacred cows in the science world, and
some degree of skepticism should be applied universally.
Certain people may think that the Earth doesn't go around the sun, but
I would sure feel sorry for them if they tried to disprove the
heliocentric model.
But the universe is NOT heliocentric, as Copernicus believed. No matter how
obvious it *appears* that everything revolves around the sun, it is simply
not true. The earth, planets, comets, planetary moons, etc. all fit with
the Copernican model. But he believed that the other stars also revolved
around the sun, which is not true. Somewhere along the line, someone had
to argue in the face of "obvious" evidence in favor of Copernicus, that the
Sun is merely one out of billions of stars. To this day, no one knows
what/where/if any "center" actually exists.
--
"By this logic, teaching anti-discrimination against ethnic minorities is
going to turn white people black." --OrangeSFO on rec.gambling.poker
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
02 Aug 2004 09:57:56 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism agray <aSgPrAaMy@bitusmeus.com> wrote:
obvious it *appears* that everything revolves around the sun, it is simply
not true. The earth, planets, comets, planetary moons, etc. all fit with
the Copernican model. But he believed that the other stars also revolved
around the sun, which is not true. Somewhere along the line, someone had
to argue in the face of "obvious" evidence in favor of Copernicus, that the
Sun is merely one out of billions of stars. To this day, no one knows
what/where/if any "center" actually exists.
Just as a nit-picky, I am the center of my universe, you are the center of
yours, etc. If "universe" means "all things that are detectable" then you
can only detect things that are with-in a given distance of yourself, due to
speed-of-light considerations. If I'm standing 10 feet to the left of you,
then I can detect things 10 feet further to your left than you can but you
can detect things 10 feet further to the right than I can. So your universe
is shifted 10 feet to the right of mine and we're both exactly in the center
of our respective universes. :)
--
Mike
W hat atheism: a non-prophet organization...
W ould
J enna
D rink?
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you
do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "agray" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
03 Aug 2004 11:57:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In talk.atheism agray <aSgPrAaMy@bitusmeus.com> wrote:
Sun is merely one out of billions of stars. To this day, no one knows
what/where/if any "center" actually exists.
Just as a nit-picky, I am the center of my universe, you are the center of
yours, etc.
Definition shift. "I am the center of my universe" only in a metaphoric
sense. It would be absurd to claim that you personally are the exact
"cosmographical" center of objective physical reality.
If "universe" means "all things that are detectable"
Yes. And if "football" means "potato", then baked "footballs" are good with
sour cream and bacon.
Independent of my ability to perceive it in its entirety, there is such a
thing as "objective physical reality". Assuming it is finite, and assuming
that reasonable criteria could be established for determining what the
limits are, then -- independent of my ability to perceive such a thing --
it must have a center.
We don't know where that is, or even whether the foregoing assumptions are
valid.
--
"By this logic, teaching anti-discrimination against ethnic minorities is
going to turn white people black." --OrangeSFO on rec.gambling.poker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
29 Jul 2004 10:32:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 03:31:57 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
agray <aSgPrAaMy@bitusmeus.com> wrote in message news:<ce8vjm05db@news4.newsguy.com>...
david ford wrote:
Vreejack@hotmail.com (John Vreeland) wrote in message news:<c66035b2.0407270202.450df910@posting.google.com>...
I've been watching this thread for a while, trying to figure out where ford
is coming from....
I am always highly
skeptical of these pop-scientific spoutings when I hear them (usually
on NPR, as it happens).
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims.
..ah! Now I know. He's either a misguided fool (like the people who
jumped on the whole "Cold Fusion" bandwagon in the 90's) or is trying to
attack science from the inside.
Skepticism is what makes a scientist a scientist.
Scientists that do science do not incorporate any metaphysical
assumptions into their research. Suppose a scientist investigates a
particular claim. That scientist conducts research, and even if that
scientist is influenced by his/her worldview in going about that
research, that worldview is eventually washed away by the process of
peer-review. What we're left with is science-- science-based claims.
The only thing that matters is that any data a scientist derives from
experimentation, and any conclusions a scientist reaches, will need to
stand the tests of time and peer-review if they are to be considered
empirical evidence.
There's no need to be skeptical of science-based claims that have
*stood the tests of time and peer-review*. Evolution and spontaneous
generation are science-based claims that have done exactly that--
stood the tests of time and peer-review-- and it could only be
insanity or psychosis that would lead someone to be skeptical of the
overwhelming scientific empirical evidence for the scientific fact of
evolution and the scientific fact of spontaneous generation.
Adherence to science-based claims that have stood the tests of time
and peer-review is what makes a scientist a scientist.
Scientists also try to use precise language so they can communicate
well. For example, the scientific fact of "spontaneous generation" is
that, for example, maggots do not spontaneously generate from rotten
meat, rats don't spontaneously generate from rags. Both rats and
maggots come from organisms quite similar (but just a bit different)
from themselves. The scientific fact of "spontaneous generation" does
*not* say that life always comes from life, it does not say that life
could not have originated naturally. Real scientists do not try to
draw inappropriate conclusions from the evidence. They do not try to
draw those kinds of conclusions about processes that would take tens
of millions of years over millions of cubic miles from observations
about vastly different conditions over very short periods of time.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
26 Jul 2004 07:36:18 PM |
|
|
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0407260034.42c62134@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407251856.e800c7c@posting.google.com>...
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio) wrote in message news:<murphy-20040725034719.18077.00000531@mb-m03.wmconnect.com>...
Mivart was "Darwin's arch rival," the only opponent Darwin didn't forgive.
Because Mivart attacked one of Darwin's sons in print.
mdotco
Mivart also published a devastasting analysis of Origin that caused Darwin
untold anguish, and necessitated another rewrite with a chapter added largely
to try and rebut SGM. Btw, Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have
never been answered by evolutionists.
[MiO]"Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have never been
answered by evolutionists." Evolutionists only provide answers to
_new_ criticisms of evolution. There naturally hasn't been any _new_
criticisms of evolution since 1859.
Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that no creationist on ID'er has
ever produced a criticism of evolution.
You're welcome.
Incidentally, do you think that developments in evolutionary theory
stopped in 1859?
Absolutely not: evolutionary theory has evolved since 1859, as more
and more things need to be explained by it. For example, evolutionary
theory can account for the tendency of men to hesitate to ask for
driving directions when they are completely lost. Darwin could not
have foreseen that automobiles would appear around 1900, precipitating
this conundrum which evolutionary theory easily solves. If women
tended to hesitate to ask for driving directions, or if men readily
stooped to asking for driving directions, evolutionary theory could
account for these alternative situations just as easily. Evolutionary
theory is extremely powerful in explaining numerous sorts of
situations, as well as their completely-opposite states of affairs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
27 Jul 2004 04:05:00 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407261643.5c3e9e64@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0407260034.42c62134@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407251856.e800c7c@posting.google.com>...
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio) wrote in message news:<murphy-20040725034719.18077.00000531@mb-m03.wmconnect.com>...
Mivart was "Darwin's arch rival," the only opponent Darwin didn't forgive.
Because Mivart attacked one of Darwin's sons in print.
mdotco
Mivart also published a devastasting analysis of Origin that caused Darwin
untold anguish, and necessitated another rewrite with a chapter added largely
to try and rebut SGM. Btw, Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have
never been answered by evolutionists.
[MiO]"Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have never been
answered by evolutionists." Evolutionists only provide answers to
_new_ criticisms of evolution. There naturally hasn't been any _new_
criticisms of evolution since 1859.
Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that no creationist on ID'er has
ever produced a criticism of evolution.
You're welcome.
Incidentally, do you think that developments in evolutionary theory
stopped in 1859?
Absolutely not: evolutionary theory has evolved since 1859, as more
and more things need to be explained by it. For example, evolutionary
theory can account for the tendency of men to hesitate to ask for
driving directions when they are completely lost. Darwin could not
have foreseen that automobiles would appear around 1900, precipitating
this conundrum which evolutionary theory easily solves. If women
tended to hesitate to ask for driving directions, or if men readily
stooped to asking for driving directions, evolutionary theory could
account for these alternative situations just as easily. Evolutionary
theory is extremely powerful in explaining numerous sorts of
situations, as well as their completely-opposite states of affairs.
Evolutionary physchology might be. That's why a lot of researchers
don't take it very seriously, and won't until it comes up with a
rather better success rate in predicting specific outcomes and
excluding specific possiblities.
Evolutionary theory as applying to the biology of organisms on the
other hand is easily falsified - rabbits in the pre-Cambrian would be
hard to explain, as would the sudden appearance of a species with no
morphological or genetic relationship to the rest of the living world.
The problem in falsifying evolutionary theory (by which I am refering
to the 'umbrella' theory - that evolution has occured - rather than
specifics of mechanism) is that we are submerged in a world of living
organisms created by evolution; to imagine a world created on
different principles is a huge step of the imagination. In trying to
think of something which would falsify evolutionary we are trying to
imagine something beyond the bounds of out normal experience.
If you want to falsify the modern synthesis - which in principle is a
combination of Darwin's natural selection and genetics - it a much
easier job. You could demonstrate the existence of biological
structures with no organismal precursors - a flying mammal whose wings
are not homologous with limbs of other mammals, for example.
Evolutionary theory is easy to falsify. The complete and utter lack of
evidence to falisfy the theory is a testament to it's stabilty.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
27 Jul 2004 07:25:10 PM |
|
|
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0407270112.7d01f011@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407261643.5c3e9e64@posting.google.com>...
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0407260034.42c62134@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407251856.e800c7c@posting.google.com>...
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio) wrote in message news:<murphy-20040725034719.18077.00000531@mb-m03.wmconnect.com>...
Mivart was "Darwin's arch rival," the only opponent Darwin didn't forgive.
Because Mivart attacked one of Darwin's sons in print.
mdotco
Mivart also published a devastasting analysis of Origin that caused Darwin
untold anguish, and necessitated another rewrite with a chapter added largely
to try and rebut SGM. Btw, Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have
never been answered by evolutionists.
[MiO]"Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have never been
answered by evolutionists." Evolutionists only provide answers to
_new_ criticisms of evolution. There naturally hasn't been any _new_
criticisms of evolution since 1859.
Well I'm glad that you acknowledge that no creationist on ID'er has
ever produced a criticism of evolution.
You're welcome.
Incidentally, do you think that developments in evolutionary theory
stopped in 1859?
Absolutely not: evolutionary theory has evolved since 1859, as more
and more things need to be explained by it. For example, evolutionary
theory can account for the tendency of men to hesitate to ask for
driving directions when they are completely lost. Darwin could not
have foreseen that automobiles would appear around 1900, precipitating
this conundrum which evolutionary theory easily solves. If women
tended to hesitate to ask for driving directions, or if men readily
stooped to asking for driving directions, evolutionary theory could
account for these alternative situations just as easily. Evolutionary
theory is extremely powerful in explaining numerous sorts of
situations, as well as their completely-opposite states of affairs.
Evolutionary physchology might be. That's why a lot of researchers
don't take it very seriously, and won't until it comes up with a
rather better success rate in predicting specific outcomes and
excluding specific possiblities.
Evolutionary psychology is an exemplar of science at its best. I have
always been puzzled as to the reasons that many but by no means all
non-EP researchers don't take evolutionary psychology more seriously.
Evolutionary theory as applying to the biology of organisms on the
other hand is easily falsified - rabbits in the pre-Cambrian would be
hard to explain, as would the sudden appearance of a species with no
morphological or genetic relationship to the rest of the living world.
Agreed. Evolutionary theory also predicts that armadillos, eagles,
and oak trees will not appear in pre-Cambrian strata. Evolutionary
theory also predicts that an organism that is not the offspring of
another organism will not appear. The sole exception of the
evolutionary theory dictum that all existing life comes from
pre-existing life is when one or more spontaneous generation events
led to the appearance of one or more common ancestors, from which
every other organism has descended.
The problem in falsifying evolutionary theory (by which I am refering
to the 'umbrella' theory - that evolution has occured - rather than
specifics of mechanism) is that we are submerged in a world of living
organisms created by evolution; to imagine a world created on
different principles is a huge step of the imagination.
Agreed. To imagine a world that appeared apart from evolution
requires a massive, humongous step of the imagination.
In trying to
think of something which would falsify evolutionary we are trying to
imagine something beyond the bounds of out normal experience.
Well, evolution is a fact, so there is no real point in attempting to
think of something that would falsify evolutionary theory.
If you want to falsify the modern synthesis - which in principle is a
combination of Darwin's natural selection and genetics - it a much
easier job.
All of the available evidence supports the correctness of the modern
synthesis, and there are no serious modern biologists that disagree
with it.
You could demonstrate the existence of biological
structures with no organismal precursors - a flying mammal whose wings
are not homologous with limbs of other mammals, for example.
Evolutionary theory is easy to falsify.
Agreed. Evolutionary theory makes many predictions about what
organisms would be expected in pre-Cambrian strata, and what organisms
would not be expected in pre-Cambrian strata.
The complete and utter lack of
evidence to falisfy the theory is a testament to it's stabilty.
And solidity. The complete and utter lack of evidence to falsify
evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology is a testament to
their stability and solidity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Flawed genius of Darwin's arch rival |
25 Jul 2004 11:51:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:49:21 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio) wrote in message news:<murphy-20040725034719.18077.00000531@mb-m03.wmconnect.com>...
Mivart was "Darwin's arch rival," the only opponent Darwin didn't forgive.
Because Mivart attacked one of Darwin's sons in print.
mdotco
Mivart also published a devastasting analysis of Origin that caused Darwin
untold anguish, and necessitated another rewrite with a chapter added largely
to try and rebut SGM. Btw, Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have
never been answered by evolutionists.
[MiO]"Mivart's scientific criticisms of evolution have never been
answered by evolutionists." Evolutionists only provide answers to
_new_ criticisms of evolution. There naturally hasn't been any _new_
criticisms of evolution since 1859.
David, I've directed several questions your way, asking you to defend
claims you've made, or to address inconsistencies in your logic. You
have avoided each one. It's no surprised your the sort of person who
believes MIO's lies from the go.
Mitchell Coffey
____________________________________
Between the rivers
Without a paddle
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
