| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ZpiralZone" |
| Date: |
26 Dec 2005 01:07:55 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Evolution science? |
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.
Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
above is not the scientific way or method.
.
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
29 Dec 2005 02:51:07 PM |
|
|
In article <87slsb93wq.fsf@drizzle.com>, "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:
No--I did not say that. I was referring to the books and articles that
they write about their research projects. The research projects are
related to scientific research. The books and articles they write are
written in such a way that almost anyone could understand and enjoy
reading them.
Hey, Jason, just one question: is there any research program you
can point to that uses your creationist theories in a technologically
productive way? Pharmaceutical companies use common origin, descent
with modification, and so forth, all the time when looking to come up
with new neuropharmaceutical drugs; is there any research program that
does *not* assume common origin or descent with modification and comes
up with saleable results?
Elf
Elf,
Try these sites:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReading.php
http://www.biolsocwash.org/
youwill find this note at the bottom of the home page:
Statement from the Council of the Biol. Soc. of Washington
regarding the publication of the paper by Stephen C. Meyer--
click on the link and read the report.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtrml
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
29 Dec 2005 05:22:34 PM |
|
|
(Jason) writes:
http://www.biolsocwash.org/
youwill find this note at the bottom of the home page:
Statement from the Council of the Biol. Soc. of Washington
regarding the publication of the paper by Stephen C. Meyer--
click on the link and read the report.
I've read the paper. It's terrible. The peer-review Meyer
received finished with these words:
There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom--
continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers
should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the
actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct
a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective
quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious
interpretations. Unless and until the "intelligent design" movement
does this, they are not seriously in the game. They're not even
playing the same sport.
Thanks for playing.
In any event, I asked you for evidence that "intelligent design"
or "creation science" had been turned into a _technology_. Meyers paper
hasn't (and can't). Until and unless one of your people actually
produces a drug, a treatment, a regimen, or some other utility that
could only make sense from the principle that some biological feature
was designed ex nihilo, I have no reason to believe you're actually out
to accomplish anything scientific.
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
31 Dec 2005 12:56:06 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <87slsb93wq.fsf@drizzle.com>, "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:
No--I did not say that. I was referring to the books and articles that
they write about their research projects. The research projects are
related to scientific research. The books and articles they write are
written in such a way that almost anyone could understand and enjoy
reading them.
Hey, Jason, just one question: is there any research program you
can point to that uses your creationist theories in a technologically
productive way? Pharmaceutical companies use common origin, descent
with modification, and so forth, all the time when looking to come up
with new neuropharmaceutical drugs; is there any research program that
does *not* assume common origin or descent with modification and comes
up with saleable results?
Elf
Elf,
Try these sites:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/essentialReading.php
http://www.biolsocwash.org/
youwill find this note at the bottom of the home page:
Statement from the Council of the Biol. Soc. of Washington
regarding the publication of the paper by Stephen C. Meyer--
click on the link and read the report.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtrml
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000430.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
29 Dec 2005 07:00:54 PM |
|
|
In <jason-2912050917170001@pm4-broad-37.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
(Jason) wrote:
In article <kL-dnU17d9--nCnenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@megapath.net>, "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <jason-2812052123530001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
(Jason) wrote:
In article <vhm6r1heu9b6oab5ssfbimjs0ermk0qd70@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and (Jason)
posting the following on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:52:36 -0800 iin
alt.atheism?
Douglas,
I enjoyed reading the book and looking at the pictures in the book
entitled, "Footprints in the Ash" by John Morris and Steven A.
Austin. The book is about the ICR's research project at Mount St.
Helens. The book was NOT written for geologists so you would
probably not like it.
The problem is you cited the ICR's so-called research at MSH. The
reason that I wouldn't like it is because they lie through their
teeth.
The 1980 event at MSH great expanded our understanding of the Cascade
volcanoes. As for everything else that happened, we understood it
was going to happen because it happens every time there is an
explosive eruption (just wait until Hood or Rainier blow.. MSH will
seem like a firecracker in comparison.)
The book was written for
non-professionals. If we both visited the Grand Canyon, I would
enjoy the beauty of it without being concerned with collecting rock
samples or taking close-up pictures of the side of a cliff. I'm not
shocked that you were not impressed with their "research". It was
not written for geologists.
When one does research into a geological event like a volcanic
eruption, one should expect that other geologists will read it.
Since we couldn't all be there (and some of us were 13 and watching
on TV at the time) we depend on solid, reviewed research by the
scientists on site to learn about the event. The ICR failed in every
measure.
As for the Grand Canyon, try the southern rim at sunrise.
Awe-inspiring.
See, I can appreciate places like the Grand Canyon both a scientific
opportunity and as a thing of beauty.
About a decade ago I went camping with my brother and his family in
the Mojave desert. For fun, we went rock hunting. My niece found a
chunk of granite in a dry stream bed. She was amazed to learn that
little rock had traveled hundreds of miles to reach that spot.. a
tale of volcanoes, earthquakes, and storms. Of dry beds that become
raging rivers in minutes, strong enough to carry boulders along until
the desert drinks in all the water.
The rocks have stories to tell us, Jason. The ICR needs to shut up
and listen to them.
Regardless--have a happy new year,
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book? ICR wants to sell
thousands of copies--not hundreds of copies. I also enjoyed visiting
the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful. Jason
So you admit they're not even trying to do science.
No--I did not say that. I was referring to the books and articles that
they write about their research projects. The research projects are
related to
scientific research. The books and articles they write are written in such
a way that almost anyone could understand and enjoy reading them.
If the books are not derived from and backed by peer reviewed research,
what good are they?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
29 Dec 2005 11:20:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:17:17 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-2912050917170001@pm4-broad-37.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <kL-dnU17d9--nCnenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@megapath.net>, "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <jason-2812052123530001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
(Jason) wrote:
In article <vhm6r1heu9b6oab5ssfbimjs0ermk0qd70@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and (Jason) posting
the following on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:52:36 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
Douglas,
I enjoyed reading the book and looking at the pictures in the book
entitled, "Footprints in the Ash" by John Morris and Steven A. Austin.
The book is about the ICR's research project at Mount St. Helens. The
book was NOT written for geologists so you would probably not like it.
The problem is you cited the ICR's so-called research at MSH. The
reason that I wouldn't like it is because they lie through their teeth.
The 1980 event at MSH great expanded our understanding of the Cascade
volcanoes. As for everything else that happened, we understood it was
going to happen because it happens every time there is an explosive
eruption (just wait until Hood or Rainier blow.. MSH will seem like a
firecracker in comparison.)
The book was written for
non-professionals. If we both visited the Grand Canyon, I would enjoy
the beauty of it without being concerned with collecting rock samples
or taking close-up pictures of the side of a cliff. I'm not shocked
that you were not impressed with their "research". It was not written
for geologists.
When one does research into a geological event like a volcanic eruption,
one should expect that other geologists will read it. Since we couldn't
all be there (and some of us were 13 and watching on TV at the time) we
depend on solid, reviewed research by the scientists on site to learn
about the event. The ICR failed in every measure.
As for the Grand Canyon, try the southern rim at sunrise. Awe-inspiring.
See, I can appreciate places like the Grand Canyon both a scientific
opportunity and as a thing of beauty.
About a decade ago I went camping with my brother and his family in the
Mojave desert. For fun, we went rock hunting. My niece found a chunk
of granite in a dry stream bed. She was amazed to learn that little
rock had traveled hundreds of miles to reach that spot.. a tale of
volcanoes, earthquakes, and storms. Of dry beds that become raging
rivers in minutes, strong enough to carry boulders along until the
desert drinks in all the water.
The rocks have stories to tell us, Jason. The ICR needs to shut up and
listen to them.
Regardless--have a happy new year,
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book? ICR wants to sell thousands
of copies--not hundreds of copies. I also enjoyed visiting the Grand
Canyon. It was beautiful. Jason
So you admit they're not even trying to do science.
No--I did not say that. I was referring to the books and articles that
they write about their research projects. The research projects are
related to scientific research.
No they are not. You cannot provide any references to any scientific
research that the ICR has done. None.
The books and articles they write are written in such
a way that almost anyone could understand and enjoy reading them.
I cannot possibly enjoy them. They are full of lies. The lies are
intentional to mislead people about science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
29 Dec 2005 11:54:32 AM |
|
|
In article <dk68r1ltrekfjip6hg1e6omej9d9d0ng1d@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:17:17 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-2912050917170001@pm4-broad-37.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <kL-dnU17d9--nCnenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@megapath.net>, "Mark K.
Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <jason-2812052123530001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
(Jason) wrote:
In article <vhm6r1heu9b6oab5ssfbimjs0ermk0qd70@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and (Jason) posting
the following on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:52:36 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
Douglas,
I enjoyed reading the book and looking at the pictures in the book
entitled, "Footprints in the Ash" by John Morris and Steven A. Austin.
The book is about the ICR's research project at Mount St. Helens. The
book was NOT written for geologists so you would probably not like it.
The problem is you cited the ICR's so-called research at MSH. The
reason that I wouldn't like it is because they lie through their teeth.
The 1980 event at MSH great expanded our understanding of the Cascade
volcanoes. As for everything else that happened, we understood it was
going to happen because it happens every time there is an explosive
eruption (just wait until Hood or Rainier blow.. MSH will seem like a
firecracker in comparison.)
The book was written for
non-professionals. If we both visited the Grand Canyon, I would enjoy
the beauty of it without being concerned with collecting rock samples
or taking close-up pictures of the side of a cliff. I'm not shocked
that you were not impressed with their "research". It was not written
for geologists.
When one does research into a geological event like a volcanic eruption,
one should expect that other geologists will read it. Since we couldn't
all be there (and some of us were 13 and watching on TV at the time) we
depend on solid, reviewed research by the scientists on site to learn
about the event. The ICR failed in every measure.
As for the Grand Canyon, try the southern rim at sunrise. Awe-inspiring.
See, I can appreciate places like the Grand Canyon both a scientific
opportunity and as a thing of beauty.
About a decade ago I went camping with my brother and his family in the
Mojave desert. For fun, we went rock hunting. My niece found a chunk
of granite in a dry stream bed. She was amazed to learn that little
rock had traveled hundreds of miles to reach that spot.. a tale of
volcanoes, earthquakes, and storms. Of dry beds that become raging
rivers in minutes, strong enough to carry boulders along until the
desert drinks in all the water.
The rocks have stories to tell us, Jason. The ICR needs to shut up and
listen to them.
Regardless--have a happy new year,
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book? ICR wants to sell thousands
of copies--not hundreds of copies. I also enjoyed visiting the Grand
Canyon. It was beautiful. Jason
So you admit they're not even trying to do science.
No--I did not say that. I was referring to the books and articles that
they write about their research projects. The research projects are
related to scientific research.
No they are not. You cannot provide any references to any scientific
research that the ICR has done. None.
The books and articles they write are written in such
a way that almost anyone could understand and enjoy reading them.
I cannot possibly enjoy them. They are full of lies. The lies are
intentional to mislead people about science.
I did not say that everyone would enjoy reading them. Obviously, you would
NOT enjoy reading books written by staff members at ICR.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
29 Dec 2005 11:58:46 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:54:32 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-2912050954320001@pm4-broad-37.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <dk68r1ltrekfjip6hg1e6omej9d9d0ng1d@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:17:17 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-2912050917170001@pm4-broad-37.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
No--I did not say that. I was referring to the books and articles that
they write about their research projects. The research projects are
related to scientific research.
No they are not. You cannot provide any references to any scientific
research that the ICR has done. None.
The books and articles they write are written in such
a way that almost anyone could understand and enjoy reading them.
I cannot possibly enjoy them. They are full of lies. The lies are
intentional to mislead people about science.
I did not say that everyone would enjoy reading them. Obviously, you would
NOT enjoy reading books written by staff members at ICR.
How can you enjoy reading books that have had intentional falsehoods put
into them for religious purposes? At least the Left Behind series is
fiction. The ICR merely lies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
29 Dec 2005 08:30:33 AM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <vhm6r1heu9b6oab5ssfbimjs0ermk0qd70@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book?
<snip>
A few (for christmas parties).
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
28 Dec 2005 11:53:27 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <vhm6r1heu9b6oab5ssfbimjs0ermk0qd70@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and (Jason) posting
the following on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:52:36 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
Douglas,
I enjoyed reading the book and looking at the pictures in the book entitled,
"Footprints in the Ash" by John Morris and Steven A. Austin. The book is
about the ICR's research project at Mount St. Helens. The book was NOT
written for geologists so you would probably not like it.
The problem is you cited the ICR's so-called research at MSH. The
reason that I wouldn't like it is because they lie through their
teeth.
The 1980 event at MSH great expanded our understanding of the Cascade
volcanoes. As for everything else that happened, we understood it was
going to happen because it happens every time there is an explosive
eruption (just wait until Hood or Rainier blow.. MSH will seem like a
firecracker in comparison.)
The book was written for
non-professionals. If we both visited the Grand Canyon, I would enjoy the
beauty of it without being concerned with collecting rock samples or
taking close-up pictures of the side of a cliff. I'm not shocked that you
were not impressed with their "research". It was not written for
geologists.
When one does research into a geological event like a volcanic
eruption, one should expect that other geologists will read it. Since
we couldn't all be there (and some of us were 13 and watching on TV at
the time) we depend on solid, reviewed research by the scientists on
site to learn about the event. The ICR failed in every measure.
As for the Grand Canyon, try the southern rim at sunrise.
Awe-inspiring. See, I can appreciate places like the Grand Canyon
both a scientific opportunity and as a thing of beauty.
About a decade ago I went camping with my brother and his family in
the Mojave desert. For fun, we went rock hunting. My niece found a
chunk of granite in a dry stream bed. She was amazed to learn that
little rock had traveled hundreds of miles to reach that spot.. a tale
of volcanoes, earthquakes, and storms. Of dry beds that become raging
rivers in minutes, strong enough to carry boulders along until the
desert drinks in all the water.
The rocks have stories to tell us, Jason. The ICR needs to shut up
and listen to them.
Regardless--have a happy new year,
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book?
ICR wants to sell thousands of copies--not hundreds of copies.
This is like the guy who one night lost his keys in the bushes, but
looked under the nearby lamppost because the light was better.
I also enjoyed visiting the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
04 Jan 2006 09:40:21 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 05:53:27 GMT, cactus <bml@ubadlands.edu> wrote in
alt.atheism
Jason wrote:
In article <vhm6r1heu9b6oab5ssfbimjs0ermk0qd70@4ax.com>, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and (Jason) posting
the following on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:52:36 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
Douglas,
I enjoyed reading the book and looking at the pictures in the book entitled,
"Footprints in the Ash" by John Morris and Steven A. Austin. The book is
about the ICR's research project at Mount St. Helens. The book was NOT
written for geologists so you would probably not like it.
The problem is you cited the ICR's so-called research at MSH. The
reason that I wouldn't like it is because they lie through their
teeth.
The 1980 event at MSH great expanded our understanding of the Cascade
volcanoes. As for everything else that happened, we understood it was
going to happen because it happens every time there is an explosive
eruption (just wait until Hood or Rainier blow.. MSH will seem like a
firecracker in comparison.)
The book was written for
non-professionals. If we both visited the Grand Canyon, I would enjoy the
beauty of it without being concerned with collecting rock samples or
taking close-up pictures of the side of a cliff. I'm not shocked that you
were not impressed with their "research". It was not written for
geologists.
When one does research into a geological event like a volcanic
eruption, one should expect that other geologists will read it. Since
we couldn't all be there (and some of us were 13 and watching on TV at
the time) we depend on solid, reviewed research by the scientists on
site to learn about the event. The ICR failed in every measure.
As for the Grand Canyon, try the southern rim at sunrise.
Awe-inspiring. See, I can appreciate places like the Grand Canyon
both a scientific opportunity and as a thing of beauty.
About a decade ago I went camping with my brother and his family in
the Mojave desert. For fun, we went rock hunting. My niece found a
chunk of granite in a dry stream bed. She was amazed to learn that
little rock had traveled hundreds of miles to reach that spot.. a tale
of volcanoes, earthquakes, and storms. Of dry beds that become raging
rivers in minutes, strong enough to carry boulders along until the
desert drinks in all the water.
The rocks have stories to tell us, Jason. The ICR needs to shut up
and listen to them.
Regardless--have a happy new year,
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book?
ICR wants to sell thousands of copies--not hundreds of copies.
This is like the guy who one night lost his keys in the bushes, but
looked under the nearby lamppost because the light was better.
Disagree. He'd look under the first steaming pile of dog ***** seen.
--
Fundies and trolls are urged to shove
a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
29 Dec 2005 01:01:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:23:53 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-2812052123530001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book?
ICR wants to sell thousands of copies--not hundreds of copies.
I also enjoyed visiting the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful.
So the issue is sales numbers, not presentation of the data. Makes
sense to me. This is one of the more accurate claims you have made.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
29 Dec 2005 02:21:29 PM |
|
|
In article <0jc8r1l88pig0llg95o3o4rsp7nfs17elr@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:23:53 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-2812052123530001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book?
ICR wants to sell thousands of copies--not hundreds of copies.
I also enjoyed visiting the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful.
So the issue is sales numbers, not presentation of the data. Makes
sense to me. This is one of the more accurate claims you have made.
Do you think that evolutionists that have Ph.D. degrees have written books
that non-professionals could easily understand? I doubt that Dr. John Morris
and Dr. Gish are the only people that have Ph.D degrees that are interested
in sales numbers. Have you considered that the staff members at ICR are
not only interested in sales numbers but also interested in the presentation
of the data.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
29 Dec 2005 08:35:13 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <> wrote in message
news:jason-2912051221300001@pm4-broad-13.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <0jc8r1l88pig0llg95o3o4rsp7nfs17elr@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:23:53 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-2812052123530001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book?
ICR wants to sell thousands of copies--not hundreds of copies.
I also enjoyed visiting the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful.
So the issue is sales numbers, not presentation of the data. Makes
sense to me. This is one of the more accurate claims you have made.
Do you think that evolutionists that have Ph.D. degrees have written books
that non-professionals could easily understand?
Evolution is a highly technical subject junior. It can't be both a complete
treatment AND easy for the lay audience to understand. I have a masters in
biology and in a heartbeat I can take the subject of evolution a mile over
your head. In nearly as short a time an evolutionary biologist can take the
subject equally far over my head. It's a very technical subject. You know
essentially nothing about it - why do you even have an opinion? You're
utterly ignorant on the subject, even science in general, why do you have an
opinion about something you know nothing about? You just look increasingly
stupid with each post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
30 Dec 2005 09:14:47 AM |
|
|
In article <B11tf.65935$6e.4377@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:
"Jason" < > wrote in message
news:jason-2912051221300001@pm4-broad-13.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <0jc8r1l88pig0llg95o3o4rsp7nfs17elr@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:23:53 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-2812052123530001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book?
ICR wants to sell thousands of copies--not hundreds of copies.
I also enjoyed visiting the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful.
So the issue is sales numbers, not presentation of the data. Makes
sense to me. This is one of the more accurate claims you have made.
Do you think that evolutionists that have Ph.D. degrees have written books
that non-professionals could easily understand?
Evolution is a highly technical subject junior. It can't be both a complete
treatment AND easy for the lay audience to understand. I have a masters in
biology and in a heartbeat I can take the subject of evolution a mile over
your head. In nearly as short a time an evolutionary biologist can take the
subject equally far over my head. It's a very technical subject. You know
essentially nothing about it - why do you even have an opinion? You're
utterly ignorant on the subject, even science in general, why do you have an
opinion about something you know nothing about? You just look increasingly
stupid with each post.
One of the issues that concerned me the most is that evolutionists don't
seem to understand true science. I am not an expert in the field of
biology. My Master's Degree is in the field of counseling. However, I did
take a college biology course many years ago and learned about the
scientific method. It appears to me that many of the advocates of
evoltution in this newsgroup don't truly understand the scientific method.
The two best examples are:
1. There is one common ancestral poplulateion to all life on earth.
2. There is a common ancestor for great apes and humans.
In both of the above cases, there are no skeletons, bones or fossils--that
would be PROOF AND EVIDENCE.
Despite not having proof and evidence, evolutionist take it for granted
that the above assertions are facts. They are also assumptions.
Consider this:
What if the two above assertions or assumptions are later determined to be
incorrect? That means the entire theory of evolution will come crashing
down like a house of cards.
So who is ignorant?? It's my opinion that evolutionists that believe the
two above assertions are correct are ignornant related to the scientific
method.
and don't even understand the difference between true science and assertions.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
30 Dec 2005 12:02:29 PM |
|
|
"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-3012050714480001@pm4-broad-20.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
One of the issues that concerned me the most is that evolutionists don't
seem to understand true science.
*****.
I am not an expert in the field of
biology. My Master's Degree is in the field of counseling.
Then shut the ***** up about biology, moron.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
30 Dec 2005 10:46:59 AM |
|
|
In <jason-3012050714480001@pm4-broad-20.snlo.dialup.fix.net>,
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
One of the issues that concerned me the most is that evolutionists don't
seem to understand true science. I am not an expert in the field of
biology. My Master's Degree is in the field of counseling.
And yet you can pass broad judgements such as "evolutionists don't seem to
understand true science?"
Well, aren't you just the second coming?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
31 Dec 2005 07:24:52 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
In article <B11tf.65935$6e.4377@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:
"Jason" < > wrote in message
news:jason-2912051221300001@pm4-broad-13.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <0jc8r1l88pig0llg95o3o4rsp7nfs17elr@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:23:53 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-2812052123530001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book?
ICR wants to sell thousands of copies--not hundreds of copies.
I also enjoyed visiting the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful.
So the issue is sales numbers, not presentation of the data. Makes
sense to me. This is one of the more accurate claims you have made.
Do you think that evolutionists that have Ph.D. degrees have written books
that non-professionals could easily understand?
Evolution is a highly technical subject junior. It can't be both a complete
treatment AND easy for the lay audience to understand. I have a masters in
biology and in a heartbeat I can take the subject of evolution a mile over
your head. In nearly as short a time an evolutionary biologist can take the
subject equally far over my head. It's a very technical subject. You know
essentially nothing about it - why do you even have an opinion? You're
utterly ignorant on the subject, even science in general, why do you have an
opinion about something you know nothing about? You just look increasingly
stupid with each post.
One of the issues that concerned me the most is that evolutionists don't
seem to understand true science. I am not an expert in the field of
biology. My Master's Degree is in the field of counseling. However, I did
take a college biology course many years ago and learned about the
scientific method. It appears to me that many of the advocates of
evoltution in this newsgroup don't truly understand the scientific method.
Did you pass the course? If you did, you did not do very well on the
scientific method part. The theory of evolution was developed before
the creationists took note. It followed the scientific method then and
now. If you do not understand it and how it applies here, it is your
problem.
The two best examples are:
1. There is one common ancestral poplulateion to all life on earth.
2. There is a common ancestor for great apes and humans.
In both of the above cases, there are no skeletons, bones or fossils--that
would be PROOF AND EVIDENCE.
There may have been several ancestral populations because life probably
developed in several different areas.
As usual, you confuse inference with assumptions. We can infer the
common ancestry of apes and humans from DNA evidence, fossil evidence,
anatomical evidence, and physiological evidence.
Just because you don't like the answers that our G-d given scientific
abilities provide doesn't mean that they are not correct.
As a counselor how do you help your patients face unpleasant truths?
What do you tell your patients who persist in their delusions despite
the evidence? Therapist, heal thyself!
Despite not having proof and evidence, evolutionist take it for granted
that the above assertions are facts. They are also assumptions.
Consider this:
What if the two above assertions or assumptions are later determined to be
incorrect? That means the entire theory of evolution will come crashing
down like a house of cards.
They aren't assertions, they are inferences. And if they are shown to be
incorrect, the theory will absorb the information and continue its
development. You are surprisingly unsophisticated for an educated
person. Scientific theories are developed for their explanatory power.
Any theory that does it better will be accepted, if scientifically
valid. You don't seem to understand that science is a method of
obtaining information, not a dogma.
So who is ignorant?? It's my opinion that evolutionists that believe the
two above assertions are correct are ignornant related to the scientific
method.
Where do you get this? Your "college level biology course" many years
ago does not provide you with the authority to assert that practicing
scientists do not understand the scientific method. It's like me, who is
not a psychotherapist, telling you that what you are doing is wrong
because you are not an orthodox Freudian.
and don't even understand the difference between true science and assertions.
It's you who doesn't.
Jason
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
30 Dec 2005 02:21:20 PM |
|
|
Jason wrote:
biology. My Master's Degree is in the field of counseling. However, I
did take a college biology course many years ago and learned about the
scientific method.
If you did learn about it, you have forgotten it.
I remember a conversation with a friend ho had her Bachelors in psychology.
She managed a store.
I asked if I could do that if I got such a degree. She said yes and pointed
out that with a masters I could get the job of the janitor who we had just
been talking to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
30 Dec 2005 05:53:20 PM |
|
|
In article <4Fgtf.42254$q%.23359@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, "Mike
Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Jason wrote:
biology. My Master's Degree is in the field of counseling. However, I
did take a college biology course many years ago and learned about the
scientific method.
If you did learn about it, you have forgotten it.
I remember a conversation with a friend ho had her Bachelors in psychology.
She managed a store.
I asked if I could do that if I got such a degree. She said yes and pointed
out that with a masters I could get the job of the janitor who we had just
been talking to.
BS ---bull shi_
MS --more shi_
PH.D.--piled high and deep
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
30 Dec 2005 06:20:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:53:20 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-3012051553210001@pm4-broad-41.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <4Fgtf.42254$q%.23359@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, "Mike
Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Jason wrote:
biology. My Master's Degree is in the field of counseling. However, I
did take a college biology course many years ago and learned about the
scientific method.
If you did learn about it, you have forgotten it.
I remember a conversation with a friend ho had her Bachelors in psychology.
She managed a store.
I asked if I could do that if I got such a degree. She said yes and pointed
out that with a masters I could get the job of the janitor who we had just
been talking to.
BS ---bull shi_
MS --more shi_
PH.D.--piled high and deep
That is considered highly witty in sixth grade.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
30 Dec 2005 10:22:36 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:14:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-3012050714480001@pm4-broad-20.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <B11tf.65935$6e.4377@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:
"Jason" < > wrote in message
news:jason-2912051221300001@pm4-broad-13.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <0jc8r1l88pig0llg95o3o4rsp7nfs17elr@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:23:53 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-2812052123530001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book?
ICR wants to sell thousands of copies--not hundreds of copies.
I also enjoyed visiting the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful.
So the issue is sales numbers, not presentation of the data. Makes
sense to me. This is one of the more accurate claims you have made.
Do you think that evolutionists that have Ph.D. degrees have written books
that non-professionals could easily understand?
Evolution is a highly technical subject junior. It can't be both a complete
treatment AND easy for the lay audience to understand. I have a masters in
biology and in a heartbeat I can take the subject of evolution a mile over
your head. In nearly as short a time an evolutionary biologist can take the
subject equally far over my head. It's a very technical subject. You know
essentially nothing about it - why do you even have an opinion? You're
utterly ignorant on the subject, even science in general, why do you have an
opinion about something you know nothing about? You just look increasingly
stupid with each post.
One of the issues that concerned me the most is that evolutionists don't
seem to understand true science.
False claim. You have already demonstrated that you do not understand
science. I cannot imagine how you would be capable of critiquing those
who are doing science.
I am not an expert in the field of
biology. My Master's Degree is in the field of counseling. However, I did
take a college biology course many years ago and learned about the
scientific method. It appears to me that many of the advocates of
evoltution in this newsgroup don't truly understand the scientific method.
Someone here doesn't understand it, but it's not the scientists. It's
the people who let their religious doctrines make it impossible to
accept the facts discovered by science.
The two best examples are:
1. There is one common ancestral poplulateion to all life on earth.
That is what the evidence points to.
2. There is a common ancestor for great apes and humans.
That is what the evidence points to.
In both of the above cases, there are no skeletons, bones or fossils--that
would be PROOF AND EVIDENCE.
Why do you refuse to understand that skeletons are not the only
evidence.
Here are some of the lines of evidence:
- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record
- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies
- Behavioral studies
- Radiometric dating
- Radically different collection of flora and fauna
during progressive eras
- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation
You have to address every single one of them before your objection will
be taken seriously. Making a broad objection that we don't have fossils
for single-celled organisms from a few billion years ago makes you look
silly. Making the objection that we don't have fossils related to the
common ancestry of great apes is false. Ignoring all of the other
evidence shows a profound dishonesty about science.
Despite not having proof and evidence, evolutionist take it for granted
that the above assertions are facts. They are also assumptions.
You have no idea what the physical evidence is. You have heard of
fossils, so you obsess about them, although you don't even understand
those correctly.
Consider this:
What if the two above assertions or assumptions are later determined to be
incorrect? That means the entire theory of evolution will come crashing
down like a house of cards.
They are not assertions or assumptions, they are conclusions drawn from
the evidence, all of the evidence. You think they are assumptions
because you remain intentionally ignorant of science and let yourself be
led by the lies of the ICR.
So who is ignorant??
You.
It's my opinion that evolutionists that believe the two above assertions
are correct are ignornant related to the scientific method.
and don't even understand the difference between true science and assertions.
You have shown beyond a doubt that you are willing to talk about things
that you are profoundly ignorant of, that you are willing to repeat lies
that have been told to you and that you are willing to libel scientists
who actually know what they are doing and why they are doing it, all,
apparently, because the evidence conflicts with the religious doctrines
that you teach. Stop worshipping your interpretation of the Bible. Stop
worshipping your ignorance. Learn about science and repent of your lies
and libels.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
30 Dec 2005 12:23:27 PM |
|
|
In article <p1nar1pv2883onrura53npr445s5ft15po@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:14:47 -0800, in alt.atheism
(Jason) wrote in
<jason-3012050714480001@pm4-broad-20.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:
In article <B11tf.65935$6e.4377@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:
"Jason" < > wrote in message
news:jason-2912051221300001@pm4-broad-13.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
In article <0jc8r1l88pig0llg95o3o4rsp7nfs17elr@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:23:53 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-2812052123530001@pm4-broad-2.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
If ICR wrote the book for geologists instead of non-professionals--how
many geologists would buy copies of the book?
ICR wants to sell thousands of copies--not hundreds of copies.
I also enjoyed visiting the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful.
So the issue is sales numbers, not presentation of the data. Makes
sense to me. This is one of the more accurate claims you have made.
Do you think that evolutionists that have Ph.D. degrees have
written books
that non-professionals could easily understand?
Evolution is a highly technical subject junior. It can't be both a
complete
treatment AND easy for the lay audience to understand. I have a
masters in
biology and in a heartbeat I can take the subject of evolution a mile over
your head. In nearly as short a time an evolutionary biologist can
take the
subject equally far over my head. It's a very technical subject.
You know
essentially nothing about it - why do you even have an opinion? You're
utterly ignorant on the subject, even science in general, why do you
have an
opinion about something you know nothing about? You just look
increasingly
stupid with each post.
One of the issues that concerned me the most is that evolutionists don't
seem to understand true science.
False claim. You have already demonstrated that you do not understand
science. I cannot imagine how you would be capable of critiquing those
who are doing science.
I am not an expert in the field of
biology. My Master's Degree is in the field of counseling. However, I did
take a college biology course many years ago and learned about the
scientific method. It appears to me that many of the advocates of
evoltution in this newsgroup don't truly understand the scientific method.
Someone here doesn't understand it, but it's not the scientists. It's
the people who let their religious doctrines make it impossible to
accept the facts discovered by science.
The two best examples are:
1. There is one common ancestral poplulateion to all life on earth.
That is what the evidence points to.
2. There is a common ancestor for great apes and humans.
That is what the evidence points to.
In both of the above cases, there are no skeletons, bones or fossils--that
would be PROOF AND EVIDENCE.
Why do you refuse to understand that skeletons are not the only
evidence.
Here are some of the lines of evidence:
- Vestigial structures.
- Homologies
- Nested hierarchies
- Vast and elaborate fossil record
- Continental drift
- Related to species distribution
- Related to nested hierarchies
- Behavioral studies
- Radiometric dating
- Radically different collection of flora and fauna
during progressive eras
- DNA and genetic data
- Related to nested hierarchies
- and recent observed events of speciation
You have to address every single one of them before your objection will
be taken seriously. Making a broad objection that we don't have fossils
for single-celled organisms from a few billion years ago makes you look
silly. Making the objection that we don't have fossils related to the
common ancestry of great apes is false. Ignoring all of the other
evidence shows a profound dishonesty about science.
Despite not having proof and evidence, evolutionist take it for granted
that the above assertions are facts. They are also assumptions.
You have no idea what the physical evidence is. You have heard of
fossils, so you obsess about them, although you don't even understand
those correctly.
Consider this:
What if the two above assertions or assumptions are later determined to be
incorrect? That means the entire theory of evolution will come crashing
down like a house of cards.
They are not assertions or assumptions, they are conclusions drawn from
the evidence, all of the evidence. You think they are assumptions
because you remain intentionally ignorant of science and let yourself be
led by the lies of the ICR.
So who is ignorant??
You.
It's my opinion that evolutionists that believe the two above assertions
are correct are ignornant related to the scientific method.
and don't even understand the difference between true science and assertions.
You have shown beyond a doubt that you are willing to talk about things
that you are profoundly ignorant of, that you are willing to repeat lies
that have been told to you and that you are willing to libel scientists
who actually know what they are doing and why they are doing it, all,
apparently, because the evidence conflicts with the religious doctrines
that you teach. Stop worshipping your interpretation of the Bible. Stop
worshipping your ignorance. Learn about science and repent of your lies
and libels.
The same God that created mankind also created great apes. God used
similar body parts and organs in great apes and mankind--that's the reason
the DNA is similar. Perhaps God should not have created any apes so as not
to confuse
evolutionists.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
30 Dec 2005 12:28:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:23:27 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-3012051023270001@pm1-broad-122.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
The same God that created mankind also created great apes. God used
similar body parts and organs in great apes and mankind--that's the reason
the DNA is similar. Perhaps God should not have created any apes so as not
to confuse evolutionists.
Such a useful explanation.
Why did it rain today? God did it.
Why didn't it rain today? God did it.
Why did Tony get sick? God did it.
Why didn't Chris get sick? God did it.
Why did that building fall down? God did it.
Why didn't that building fall down? God did it.
It applies to everything we see, everything we don't see, everything
we could see, everything we couldn't see.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution science? |
30 Dec 2005 07:20:59 PM |
|
|
Uzytkownik "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
napisal w wiadomosci news:7uuar1le0ilik96fter4aghgv501lpufde@4ax.com...
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:23:27 -0800, in alt.atheism ,
(Jason) in <jason-3012051023270001@pm1-broad-122.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
[snip]
The same God that created mankind also created great apes. God used
similar body parts and organs in great apes and mankind--that's the reason
the DNA is similar. Perhaps God should not have created any apes so as not
to confuse evolutionists.
Such a useful explanation.
Why did it rain today? God did it.
Why didn't it rain today? God did it.
Why did Tony get sick? God did it.
Why didn | | | | | | | | |
