| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
16 Apr 2004 10:15:33 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Shaw on God's creation |
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc801af.1fc.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
david ford:
Incidentally, the quote above makes an argument from incredulity.
And you're the expert on those.
Please present those words of mine, if any, that make you
think that I've made an argument from incredulity.
Do you think Darwin made an argument from incredulity in
the passage below?
Darwin, Charles. July 1860. Letter to Asa Gray in _Life and
Letters of Charles Darwin_ (New York: D. Appleton and
Co., 1898), edited by Francis Darwin, volume 1, page 284.
Cited in Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, _Why
Scientists Accept Evolution_ (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Book House), 113pp., 48:
One word more on "designed laws" and "undesigned
results." I see a bird which I want for food, take my gun
and kill it, I do this _designedly_. An innocent and
good man stands under a tree and is killed by a flash of
lightning. Do you believe (and I really should like to
hear) that God _designedly_ killed this man? Many or
most persons do believe this; I can't and don't. If you
believe so, do you believe that when a swallow snaps up
a gnat that God designed that that particular swallow
should snap up that particular gnat at that particular
instant? I believe that the man and the gnat are in the
same predicament. If the death of neither man nor gnat
are designed, I see no reason to believe that their _first_
birth or production should be necessarily designed.
.
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
16 Apr 2004 10:35:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 03:15:33 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc801af.1fc.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
david ford:
Incidentally, the quote above makes an argument from incredulity.
And you're the expert on those.
Please present those words of mine, if any, that make you
think that I've made an argument from incredulity.
Your whole world-view is based upon arguments from incredulity.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
17 Apr 2004 09:28:27 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc819ja.2as.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 03:15:33 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc801af.1fc.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
david ford:
Incidentally, the quote above makes an argument from incredulity.
And you're the expert on those.
Please present those words of mine, if any, that make you
think that I've made an argument from incredulity.
Your whole world-view is based upon arguments from incredulity.
Your above sentence is not [df]"words of mine." Feel free to
elaborate on your allegation, if you wish.
<snip>
I see that you snipped my Darwin quote and accompanying question.
Let's try this again, with another Darwin comment.
Darwin, Charles. Letter to Asa Gray, probably in late 1860. Cited in
Sara Joan Miles's "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and
Design"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html
But I grieve to say that I cannot honestly go as far as
you do about Design .... [Y]ou lead me to infer that you
believe "that variation has been led along certain
beneficial lines."--I cannot believe this; & I think you
would have to believe, that the tail of the fan-tail was
led to vary in the number & direction of its feathers in
order to gratify the caprice of a few men.
Do you think Darwin made an argument from incredulity in the passage
above?
Do you think Darwin set up a strawman position in the passage above?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
17 Apr 2004 01:25:54 PM |
|
|
David,
Since you ask a lot of questions which you expect the TO regulars to
answer I assume you would not be adverse to answering some of my
questions. If you answer these questions please simply answer them. No
quotations from others.
What is your goal with the threads you start?
What is your personal position in regard to the ToE/Creationism debate?
Why are you concerned with the opinions of people on this issue from 20+
years ago?
Choosing not to answer these simple questions will of course serve to
confirm that you are simply a pathetic creationist desperate to find
something to use as an argument against the ToE.
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
17 Apr 2004 07:41:06 PM |
|
|
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<WGegc.42330$K_.981860@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
David,
Since you ask a lot of questions which you expect the TO regulars to
answer I assume you would not be adverse to answering some of my
questions. If you answer these questions please simply answer them. No
quotations from others.
What is your goal with the threads you start?
Questions are good.
Any goals I might have for starting a thread depend upon what the
thread is. What are 2 threads that you had in mind?
What is your personal position in regard to the ToE/Creationism debate?
I am an old earth creationist/ intelligent-designist.
Why are you concerned with the opinions of people on this issue from 20+
years ago?
I like the history of science. The theory of natural selection has
never received confirmation from the fossil record, breeding
experiments, and laboratory experiments. Showing that this was the
case through the years since 1859 helps bolster my position that the
theory of natural selection currently lacks any significant support
from these areas.
Choosing not to answer these simple questions will of course serve to
confirm that you are simply a pathetic creationist desperate to find
something to use as an argument against the ToE.
Of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
19 Apr 2004 02:27:26 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<WGegc.42330$K_.981860@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
David,
Since you ask a lot of questions which you expect the TO regulars to
answer I assume you would not be adverse to answering some of my
questions. If you answer these questions please simply answer them. No
quotations from others.
What is your goal with the threads you start?
Questions are good.
Any goals I might have for starting a thread depend upon what the
thread is. What are 2 threads that you had in mind?
What is your personal position in regard to the ToE/Creationism debate?
I am an old earth creationist/ intelligent-designist.
Why are you concerned with the opinions of people on this issue from 20+
years ago?
I like the history of science. The theory of natural selection has
never received confirmation from the fossil record, breeding
experiments, and laboratory experiments. Showing that this was the
case through the years since 1859 helps bolster my position that the
theory of natural selection currently lacks any significant support
from these areas.
Are you using the term "theory of natural selection" as a synonym for
the ToE? Otherwise I don't see how you can have a serious objection to
ns. Most creationists try to avoid ns or call it a tautology and act
like that somehow hurts the ToE.
Would you care to expand on what part(s) of ns you have a problem with?
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
27 Apr 2004 09:46:50 PM |
|
|
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<yMVgc.3424$um3.99717@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
david ford wrote:
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<WGegc.42330$K_.981860@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
David,
Since you ask a lot of questions which you expect the TO regulars to
answer I assume you would not be adverse to answering some of my
questions. If you answer these questions please simply answer them. No
quotations from others.
What is your goal with the threads you start?
Questions are good.
Any goals I might have for starting a thread depend upon what the
thread is. What are 2 threads that you had in mind?
What is your personal position in regard to the ToE/Creationism debate?
I am an old earth creationist/ intelligent-designist.
Why are you concerned with the opinions of people on this issue from 20+
years ago?
I like the history of science. The theory of natural selection has
never received confirmation from the fossil record, breeding
experiments, and laboratory experiments. Showing that this was the
case through the years since 1859 helps bolster my position that the
theory of natural selection currently lacks any significant support
from these areas.
Are you using the term "theory of natural selection" as a synonym for
the ToE?
No.
Schutzenberger wasn't a creationist; options for the
blindwatchmakingist
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980527000035.6222A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Otherwise I don't see how you can have a serious objection to
ns. Most creationists try to avoid ns or call it a tautology and act
like that somehow hurts the ToE.
Would you care to expand on what part(s) of ns you have a problem with?
The fossil record decisively refutes 2 major predictions of the theory
of natural selection.
The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
and new body structures having new functions would appear.
Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
the appearance of new organs and new structures having new functions.
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311302356490.22520-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS's "crazy-quilt" prediction;
creationist Behe recommends research on the
intelligent-design-of-common-descent hypothesis
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com
fallacy of false extrapolation
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural
Selection
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
1916 Caullery: "data of Mendelism embarrass us"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403191919.590c22e3%40posting.google.com
fruit flies
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin" on the Discovery Institute website
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=130
NIEH
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980604010337.18472C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Koestler, Waddington, Dobzhansky, and a remark for Gould
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980606011626.8316A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Shaw" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
28 Apr 2004 07:42:23 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<yMVgc.3424$um3.99717@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
david ford wrote:
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<WGegc.42330$K_.981860@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
David,
Since you ask a lot of questions which you expect the TO regulars to
answer I assume you would not be adverse to answering some of my
questions. If you answer these questions please simply answer them. No
quotations from others.
What is your goal with the threads you start?
Questions are good.
Any goals I might have for starting a thread depend upon what the
thread is. What are 2 threads that you had in mind?
What is your personal position in regard to the ToE/Creationism debate?
I am an old earth creationist/ intelligent-designist.
Why are you concerned with the opinions of people on this issue from 20+
years ago?
I like the history of science. The theory of natural selection has
never received confirmation from the fossil record, breeding
experiments, and laboratory experiments. Showing that this was the
case through the years since 1859 helps bolster my position that the
theory of natural selection currently lacks any significant support
from these areas.
Are you using the term "theory of natural selection" as a synonym for
the ToE?
No.
Schutzenberger wasn't a creationist; options for the
blindwatchmakingist
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980527000035.6222A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Please only post links to actual references not to your old posts which
quote other sources.
BTW what does this have to do with answering a simple question? One that
your one word answer was sufficient for.
Otherwise I don't see how you can have a serious objection to
ns. Most creationists try to avoid ns or call it a tautology and act
like that somehow hurts the ToE.
Would you care to expand on what part(s) of ns you have a problem with?
The fossil record decisively refutes 2 major predictions of the theory
of natural selection.
The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
and new body structures having new functions would appear.
Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
the appearance of new organs and new structures having new functions.
Are you familiar with the fossil record of ceratopians? It shows a clear
sequence of the development of a new body structure. In the early basal
animals there is no bony frill on the back of the skull. As the line
progresses the bony frill appears and increases in size and in complexity.
<snip more links to your posts>
Ken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hank" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
28 Apr 2004 10:14:41 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<yMVgc.3424$um3.99717@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
david ford wrote:
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<WGegc.42330$K_.981860@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
David,
Since you ask a lot of questions which you expect the TO regulars to
answer I assume you would not be adverse to answering some of my
questions. If you answer these questions please simply answer them. No
quotations from others.
What is your goal with the threads you start?
Questions are good.
Any goals I might have for starting a thread depend upon what the
thread is. What are 2 threads that you had in mind?
What is your personal position in regard to the ToE/Creationism debate?
I am an old earth creationist/ intelligent-designist.
Why are you concerned with the opinions of people on this issue from 20+
years ago?
I like the history of science. The theory of natural selection has
never received confirmation from the fossil record, breeding
experiments, and laboratory experiments. Showing that this was the
case through the years since 1859 helps bolster my position that the
theory of natural selection currently lacks any significant support
from these areas.
Are you using the term "theory of natural selection" as a synonym for
the ToE?
No.
Schutzenberger wasn't a creationist; options for the
blindwatchmakingist
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980527000035.6222A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Otherwise I don't see how you can have a serious objection to
ns. Most creationists try to avoid ns or call it a tautology and act
like that somehow hurts the ToE.
Would you care to expand on what part(s) of ns you have a problem with?
The fossil record decisively refutes 2 major predictions of the theory
of natural selection.
This is one of the most laughable claims I've seen come from an anti-science propagandist. Natural Selection developed
as a result of observations *from* the fossil record. This is a classic example of the *big lie*.
The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
and new body structures having new functions would appear.
Like fins developing into legs? Scales into feathers? Both are well documented.
Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
Bunk. Fruit fly experiments alone confirmed it long ago.
Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
the appearance of new organs and new structures having new functions.
Which major organ would you expect to evolve in only 150 years?
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
29 Apr 2004 11:06:29 PM |
|
|
Hank <Hank@application.com> wrote in message news:<408FC071.8D67ACD@Company.com>...
david ford wrote:
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<yMVgc.3424$um3.99717@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
david ford wrote:
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<WGegc.42330$K_.981860@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
David,
Since you ask a lot of questions which you expect the TO regulars to
answer I assume you would not be adverse to answering some of my
questions. If you answer these questions please simply answer them. No
quotations from others.
What is your goal with the threads you start?
Questions are good.
Any goals I might have for starting a thread depend upon what the
thread is. What are 2 threads that you had in mind?
What is your personal position in regard to the ToE/Creationism debate?
I am an old earth creationist/ intelligent-designist.
Why are you concerned with the opinions of people on this issue from 20+
years ago?
I like the history of science. The theory of natural selection has
never received confirmation from the fossil record, breeding
experiments, and laboratory experiments. Showing that this was the
case through the years since 1859 helps bolster my position that the
theory of natural selection currently lacks any significant support
from these areas.
Are you using the term "theory of natural selection" as a synonym for
the ToE?
No.
Schutzenberger wasn't a creationist; options for the
blindwatchmakingist
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980527000035.6222A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Otherwise I don't see how you can have a serious objection to
ns. Most creationists try to avoid ns or call it a tautology and act
like that somehow hurts the ToE.
Would you care to expand on what part(s) of ns you have a problem with?
The fossil record decisively refutes 2 major predictions of the theory
of natural selection.
This is one of the most laughable claims I've seen come from an anti-science
propagandist. Natural Selection developed as a result of observations
*from* the fossil record. This is a classic example of the *big lie*.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
The theory of natural selection is based upon a faulty extrapolation
from insignificant changes observed today to the allegation that given
enough of these sorts of changes over millions of years, new organs
and new body structures having new functions would appear.
Like fins developing into legs? Scales into feathers? Both are well
documented.
Laboratory and breeding experiment data from the past 150 years fail
to supply confirmatory evidence for the theory of natural selection.
Bunk. Fruit fly experiments alone confirmed it long ago.
You don't know what you're talking about.
fruit flies
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural
Selection
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
Mutations are not of a nature as to be plausibly contributory toward
the appearance of new organs and new structures having new functions.
Which major organ would you expect to evolve in only 150 years?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
01 May 2004 07:41:07 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404292010.562a8b5@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
<snipped>
I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
presented the weakness in his theory.
It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
01 May 2004 08:19:59 PM |
|
|
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405010445.2cc8544a@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404292010.562a8b5@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
<snipped>
I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Just calling it like it is.
Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
the imperfection of the geologic record."
Citation in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
presented the weakness in his theory.
In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
would the presentation get published?
It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
02 May 2004 03:03:06 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405011724.7a0117be@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405010445.2cc8544a@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404292010.562a8b5@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
<snipped>
I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Just calling it like it is.
Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
the imperfection of the geologic record."
Citation in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Presumably written by someone who hadn't read the original either
Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
presented the weakness in his theory.
In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
would the presentation get published?
If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
seriously by the scientific community.
It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
05 May 2004 09:27:13 PM |
|
|
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405020007.2c61c8cf@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405011724.7a0117be@posting.google.com>...
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405010445.2cc8544a@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404292010.562a8b5@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
<snipped>
I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Just calling it like it is.
Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
the imperfection of the geologic record."
Citation in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Presumably written by someone who hadn't read the original either
Your presumption is incorrect. See the 2nd paragraph of Hsu's
"Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
presented the weakness in his theory.
In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
would the presentation get published?
If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
seriously by the scientific community.
That's very nice.
If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
presentation get published?
What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
presentation was approved for publication?
What fossil record observations would the reviewers wish to see made
before the presentation was approved for publication?
It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
06 May 2004 02:14:18 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405051832.156ae71a@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405020007.2c61c8cf@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405011724.7a0117be@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405010445.2cc8544a@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404292010.562a8b5@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
<snipped>
I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Just calling it like it is.
Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
the imperfection of the geologic record."
Citation in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Presumably written by someone who hadn't read the original either
Your presumption is incorrect. See the 2nd paragraph of Hsu's
"Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
And? I don't think that anyone reading the 'Orgins' could describe
Darwin as "beating the drums and chanting". Hsu was using emotive and
inappropriate language. Perhaps you should try reading it for yourself
and forming your own opinion, rather than relying on other people's.
Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
presented the weakness in his theory.
In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
would the presentation get published?
If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
seriously by the scientific community.
That's very nice.
If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
presentation get published?
Yes. He backed it up with exhaustive observation.
What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
presentation was approved for publication?
Experiments? It's based on description! In my work I don't do any
experiments. I describe what is there. You don't have to carry out
experiments to do good science.
What fossil record observations would the reviewers wish to see made
before the presentation was approved for publication?
None. Darwin did not base his case for natural selection on the fossil
record. He based it mainly on his observations of the natural world.
Russel, who came up with the same theory and whose findings
preciptated the publication of the Origins based his version entirely
on his observations of the natural world.
Get this into your head: the fossil record is not fundamental to the
case for natural selection. How can it be? Natural selection is based
on observations of how existing organisms interact. How can the fossil
record show such interactions?
Natural selection is a process which drives evolution. The fossil
record shows that life has changed over geological time. It has become
more varied and complex. That is the observation which shows that
evolution has occured, and was known well before Darwin's time.
It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
As I have written before, you could present a stronger case if you
made the effort to educate yourself in the subject you are attacking.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
06 May 2004 02:41:08 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405051832.156ae71a@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405020007.2c61c8cf@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405011724.7a0117be@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405010445.2cc8544a@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404292010.562a8b5@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
<snipped>
I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Just calling it like it is.
Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
the imperfection of the geologic record."
Citation in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Presumably written by someone who hadn't read the original either
Your presumption is incorrect. See the 2nd paragraph of Hsu's
"Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
You need to do better than that, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford. Hsu isn't Rinstein. It's Biologists world wide that you've to
convince, Christian Taliban historian, David Ford.
Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
presented the weakness in his theory.
In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
would the presentation get published?
If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
seriously by the scientific community.
That's very nice.
I don't think Christian Taliban are very nice. They are just
terrorists.
If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
presentation get published?
Of course but then Christian Taliban historian, David Ford is not well
for his intellect or contribution to science.
What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
presentation was approved for publication?
How eould you know one way or the other, Christian Taliban historian,
David Ford?
What fossil record observations would the reviewers wish to see made
before the presentation was approved for publication?
See above.
It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
06 May 2004 12:05:51 PM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0405052346.182690d6@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405051832.156ae71a@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405020007.2c61c8cf@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405011724.7a0117be@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405010445.2cc8544a@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404292010.562a8b5@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
<snipped>
I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Just calling it like it is.
Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
the imperfection of the geologic record."
Citation in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Presumably written by someone who hadn't read the original either
Your presumption is incorrect. See the 2nd paragraph of Hsu's
"Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
You need to do better than that, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford. Hsu isn't Rinstein. It's Biologists world wide that you've to
convince, Christian Taliban historian, David Ford.
[m]"Hsu isn't Rinstein." Correct, he's Hsu.
about Hsu
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
presented the weakness in his theory.
In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
would the presentation get published?
If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
seriously by the scientific community.
That's very nice.
I don't think Christian Taliban are very nice. They are just
terrorists.
[m]"Christian Taliban.... are just terrorists." How so?
What is the meaning of [m]"Christian Taliban"?
If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
presentation get published?
Of course but then Christian Taliban historian, David Ford is not well
for his intellect or contribution to science.
I don't follow. Perhaps a word is missing.
What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
presentation was approved for publication?
How eould you know one way or the other, Christian Taliban historian,
David Ford?
Do you have an answer to the question? If so, please present it.
What fossil record observations would the reviewers wish to see made
before the presentation was approved for publication?
See above.
It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
07 May 2004 03:48:19 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405060911.3f5c3a61@posting.google.com>...
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0405052346.182690d6@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405051832.156ae71a@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405020007.2c61c8cf@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405011724.7a0117be@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405010445.2cc8544a@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404292010.562a8b5@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
<snipped>
I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Just calling it like it is.
Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
the imperfection of the geologic record."
Citation in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Presumably written by someone who hadn't read the original either
Your presumption is incorrect. See the 2nd paragraph of Hsu's
"Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
You need to do better than that, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford. Hsu isn't Rinstein. It's Biologists world wide that you've to
convince, Christian Taliban historian, David Ford.
[m]"Hsu isn't Rinstein." Correct, he's Hsu.
It isn't Einstein or Hsu who determines science. It's scientists in
the relevant fields all over the world who come to a consensenus or
not based on the evidence and evaluation. Hsu isn't going to get the
Nobel Prize for his apologetics.
about Hsu
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
But assertions by Christian Talban historian, David Ford, are
worthless.
Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
presented the weakness in his theory.
In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
would the presentation get published?
If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
seriously by the scientific community.
That's very nice.
I don't think Christian Taliban are very nice. They are just
terrorists.
[m]"Christian Taliban.... are just terrorists." How so?
What is the meaning of [m]"Christian Taliban"?
They're the same as the Islamic Taliban. You're one of them.
If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
presentation get published?
Of course but then Christian Taliban historian, David Ford is not well
for his intellect or contribution to science.
I don't follow. Perhaps a word is missing.
So Christian Taliban historian, David Ford, is well known for his
contributions to science?
What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
presentation was approved for publication?
How eould you know one way or the other, Christian Taliban historian,
David Ford?
Do you have an answer to the question? If so, please present it.
You have to present it to the courts, Christian Taliban historian,
David Ford. Have yon been taking lessons in Confederate and Bible Belt
fundamentalist bombast and bluster, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford?
What fossil record observations would the reviewers wish to see made
before the presentation was approved for publication?
See above.
It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
07 May 2004 01:30:19 PM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0405070053.4b19d336@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405060911.3f5c3a61@posting.google.com>...
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0405052346.182690d6@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405051832.156ae71a@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405020007.2c61c8cf@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405011724.7a0117be@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405010445.2cc8544a@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404292010.562a8b5@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
<snipped>
I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Just calling it like it is.
Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
the imperfection of the geologic record."
Citation in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Presumably written by someone who hadn't read the original either
Your presumption is incorrect. See the 2nd paragraph of Hsu's
"Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
You need to do better than that, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford. Hsu isn't Rinstein. It's Biologists world wide that you've to
convince, Christian Taliban historian, David Ford.
[m]"Hsu isn't Rinstein." Correct, he's Hsu.
It isn't Einstein or Hsu who determines science. It's scientists in
the relevant fields all over the world who come to a consensenus or
not based on the evidence and evaluation. Hsu isn't going to get the
Nobel Prize for his apologetics.
Dawkins isn't going to get the Nobel Prize for his apologetics.
Neither is Dennett or Futuyma.
about Hsu
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
But assertions by Christian Talban historian, David Ford, are
worthless.
Are [m]"assertions" by Hsu similarly [m]"worthless"?
Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
presented the weakness in his theory.
In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
would the presentation get published?
If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
seriously by the scientific community.
That's very nice.
I don't think Christian Taliban are very nice. They are just
terrorists.
[m]"Christian Taliban.... are just terrorists." How so?
What is the meaning of [m]"Christian Taliban"?
They're the same as the Islamic Taliban. You're one of them.
I've been exposed. Perhaps someone ratted. Perhaps you figured that
out from my numerous trips to and from Afghanistan, to meet with
individuals that would go on to become members of the Afghan Taliban.
Mujahideen: The Resistance in Afghanistan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0101011312370.615920-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu
I hope it's not the case that you know what other societies I am
secretly a member of-- I hope that at least those memberships are
still hidden.
If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
presentation get published?
Of course but then Christian Taliban historian, David Ford is not well
for his intellect or contribution to science.
I don't follow. Perhaps a word is missing.
So Christian Taliban historian, David Ford, is well known for his
contributions to science?
Are you aware of any historian that is [m]"well known for his
contributions to science"?
What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
presentation was approved for publication?
How eould you know one way or the other, Christian Taliban historian,
David Ford?
Do you have an answer to the question? If so, please present it.
You have to present it to the courts, Christian Taliban historian,
In that case, perhaps I'll see you at some basketball or tennis court.
Thank you for your suggestion.
David Ford. Have yon been taking lessons in Confederate and Bible Belt
fundamentalist bombast and bluster, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford?
The aliens I have encountered have provided excellent [m]"lessons
in... bombast and bluster." They claimed to have been designated
representatives of "The Great Maff," a claim that was moderately
plausible. Their ray gun shots just barely missed my feet as they
shouted, "Go to the courts, you historian!"
What fossil record observations would the reviewers wish to see made
before the presentation was approved for publication?
See above.
It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
08 May 2004 02:46:48 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405071035.32cfbb39@posting.google.com>...
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0405070053.4b19d336@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405060911.3f5c3a61@posting.google.com>...
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0405052346.182690d6@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405051832.156ae71a@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405020007.2c61c8cf@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405011724.7a0117be@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0405010445.2cc8544a@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0404292010.562a8b5@posting.google.com>...
<snipped>
David Ford wrote:
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
<snipped>
I have to object to the use of the emotive word 'whining'.
Just calling it like it is.
Does this suit you?: [Hsu]"He kept on beating the drums and chanting
the imperfection of the geologic record."
Citation in
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Presumably written by someone who hadn't read the original either
Your presumption is incorrect. See the 2nd paragraph of Hsu's
"Darwin's three mistakes" _Geology_ 14:532-4 (1986).
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980420224549.15287A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
You need to do better than that, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford. Hsu isn't Rinstein. It's Biologists world wide that you've to
convince, Christian Taliban historian, David Ford.
[m]"Hsu isn't Rinstein." Correct, he's Hsu.
It isn't Einstein or Hsu who determines science. It's scientists in
the relevant fields all over the world who come to a consensenus or
not based on the evidence and evaluation. Hsu isn't going to get the
Nobel Prize for his apologetics.
Dawkins isn't going to get the Nobel Prize for his apologetics.
Neither is Dennett or Futuyma.
But Christian Taiban historian, David Ford, is not well known for his
contribution to science.
about Hsu
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980422000741.15045A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
But assertions by Christian Talban historian, David Ford, are
worthless.
Are [m]"assertions" by Hsu similarly [m]"worthless"?
That's what biologists world wide say. That's why you should refer to
peer reviewed Biology journals, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford.
Darwin put forward his theory of natural selection, built a case for
hie theory based on exhaustive research and observation, and also
presented the weakness in his theory.
In your view, if an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of
his theory of natural selection through the peer-review process today,
would the presentation get published?
If someone of Darwins' stature were to write a book proposing a theory
to explain one of the processes of evolution, it would be treated very
seriously by the scientific community.
That's very nice.
I don't think Christian Taliban are very nice. They are just
terrorists.
[m]"Christian Taliban.... are just terrorists." How so?
What is the meaning of [m]"Christian Taliban"?
They're the same as the Islamic Taliban. You're one of them.
I've been exposed. Perhaps someone ratted. Perhaps you figured that
out from my numerous trips to and from Afghanistan, to meet with
individuals that would go on to become members of the Afghan Taliban.
Mujahideen: The Resistance in Afghanistan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0101011312370.615920-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu
I hope it's not the case that you know what other societies I am
secretly a member of-- I hope that at least those memberships are
still hidden.
If you're willing to sacrifice your life and money for the Christian
Taliban cause then go for it.
If an attempt were made to get Darwin's presentation of his theory of
natural selection through the peer-review process today, would the
presentation get published?
Of course but then Christian Taliban historian, David Ford is not well
for his intellect or contribution to science.
I don't follow. Perhaps a word is missing.
So Christian Taliban historian, David Ford, is well known for his
contributions to science?
Are you aware of any historian that is [m]"well known for his
contributions to science"?
Very unlikely. That's why Christian Taliban historian, David Ford will
never make any difference to science.
What experiments would the reviewers wish to see performed before the
presentation was approved for publication?
How eould you know one way or the other, Christian Taliban historian,
David Ford?
Do you have an answer to the question? If so, please present it.
You have to present it to the courts, Christian Taliban historian,
In that case, perhaps I'll see you at some basketball or tennis court.
Thank you for your suggestion.
But Christian Taliban historian, David Ford will be indicted in
criminal and civil courts. Criminal and Civil Courts don't sit in
baseball and tennis courts.
David Ford. Have yon been taking lessons in Confederate and Bible Belt
fundamentalist bombast and bluster, Christian Taliban historian, David
Ford?
The aliens I have encountered have provided excellent [m]"lessons
in... bombast and bluster." They claimed to have been designated
representatives of "The Great Maff," a claim that was moderately
plausible. Their ray gun shots just barely missed my feet as they
shouted, "Go to the courts, you historian!"
That's what Jefferson Davis also thought.
Constitution of the Confederate States of America
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/confederate_constitution.html
March 11,1861
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity~invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God~do ordain
and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
What fossil record observations would the reviewers wish to see made
before the presentation was approved for publication?
See above.
It is an object lesson in how to present a scientific case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
30 Apr 2004 08:41:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:06:29 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
Hank <Hank@application.com> wrote in message news:<408FC071.8D67ACD@Company.com>...
david ford wrote:
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<yMVgc.3424$um3.99717@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
david ford wrote:
Ken Shaw <none.of@your.biz> wrote in message news:<WGegc.42330$K_.981860@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
snip
The fossil record decisively refutes 2 major predictions of the theory
of natural selection.
This is one of the most laughable claims I've seen come from an anti-science
propagandist. Natural Selection developed as a result of observations
*from* the fossil record. This is a classic example of the *big lie*.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Charles Darwin's
_Origin_ contained an entire chapter devoted to the alleged
imperfection of the fossil record, and whining that if only the fossil
record was a complete collection of the organisms present on earth,
then the fossil record would contain confirmation for Darwin's theory
of natural selection.
There are a few problems with your example. The biggest problem is
that Darwin's writings are not holy scripture; a great deal has been
discovered in the past ca. 150 years. Even, however, if we limit
ourselves to what Darwin wrote above, the failure of something to
completely confirm something is not the same things as refuting it.
In any event the theory does not depend on the fossil record, which
one could not possibly expect to be complete. No biologist has ever
refuted evolution, which is accepted, not as some popular concept, but
as a well established fact. DNA research in recent years has only
strengthened the theory. Try to find one biologist actually doing
research who questions evolution. They do not exist. Their is no
controversy.
It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
claim that it does. Are they lying, or are they ignorant? Those are
the only two choices.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
30 Apr 2004 11:27:22 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<qoi490h3374bpfs4s373cn0pgfhmg774m8@4ax.com>...
<snip>
It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
claim that it does. Are they lying, or are they ignorant? Those are
the only two choices.
I think in the beginning, it tends to be ignorance. Some creation
supporters I've met were totally unaware that it's quite possible to
reconcile both religious faith and evolution. Somehow they get the
impression that accepting evolution means they have to give up on God,
which couldn't be further from the truth.
But for the big-time anti-evilutionists - they're just a bunch of con
artists trying to sell more books. At least that's the distinct
impression I get. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
01 May 2004 09:28:42 AM |
|
|
(VoiceOfReason) wrote in message news:<6c4d0eab.0404302031.345744e4@posting.google.com>...
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<qoi490h3374bpfs4s373cn0pgfhmg774m8@4ax.com>...
<snip>
It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
claim that it does. Are they lying, or are they ignorant? Those are
the only two choices.
I think in the beginning, it tends to be ignorance. Some creation
supporters I've met were totally unaware that it's quite possible to
reconcile both religious faith and evolution. Somehow they get the
impression that accepting evolution means they have to give up on God,
which couldn't be further from the truth.
[p/ VOR]"it's quite possible to reconcile both religious faith and evolution"
What is the definition of [p/ VOR]"evolution"?
But for the big-time anti-evilutionists - they're just a bunch of con
artists trying to sell more books. At least that's the distinct
impression I get. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bennett Standeven" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
01 May 2004 06:57:29 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405010632.48fdd81c@posting.google.com>...
papa_fox57@hotmail.com (VoiceOfReason) wrote in message news:<6c4d0eab.0404302031.345744e4@posting.google.com>...
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<qoi490h3374bpfs4s373cn0pgfhmg774m8@4ax.com>...
<snip>
It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
claim that it does. Are they lying, or are they ignorant? Those are
the only two choices.
I think in the beginning, it tends to be ignorance. Some creation
supporters I've met were totally unaware that it's quite possible to
reconcile both religious faith and evolution. Somehow they get the
impression that accepting evolution means they have to give up on God,
which couldn't be further from the truth.
[p/ VOR]"it's quite possible to reconcile both religious faith and evolution"
What is the definition of [p/ VOR]"evolution"?
[p/ VOR]"evolution" refers to the theory developed by Charles Darwin,
and refined by later biologists during the past century and a half.
Among other things, it states that most organisms are related to one
another, and that the differences between them are produced largely
through the action of natural selection.
But for the big-time anti-evilutionists - they're just a bunch of con
artists trying to sell more books. At least that's the distinct
impression I get. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
02 May 2004 05:35:52 AM |
|
|
(Bennett Standeven) wrote in message news:<24c3076b.0405011601.39bb76f5@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405010632.48fdd81c@posting.google.com>...
papa_fox57@hotmail.com (VoiceOfReason) wrote in message news:<6c4d0eab.0404302031.345744e4@posting.google.com>...
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<qoi490h3374bpfs4s373cn0pgfhmg774m8@4ax.com>...
<snip>
It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
claim that it does. Are they lying, or are they ignorant? Those are
the only two choices.
I think in the beginning, it tends to be ignorance. Some creation
supporters I've met were totally unaware that it's quite possible to
reconcile both religious faith and evolution. Somehow they get the
impression that accepting evolution means they have to give up on God,
which couldn't be further from the truth.
[p/ VOR]"it's quite possible to reconcile both religious faith and evolution"
What is the definition of [p/ VOR]"evolution"?
[p/ VOR]"evolution" refers to the theory developed by Charles Darwin,
and refined by later biologists during the past century and a half.
Among other things, it states that most organisms are related to one
another, and that the differences between them are produced largely
through the action of natural selection.
Yeah, what he said. :-) Plus all organisms (including man) having
evolved from previous organisms. And the earth being billions of
years old. It's not a problem for religion unless your denomination
requires adherence to the literal interpretation of the 6-day thing.
In that event you'd have problems not just with evolution, but with
*any* science that indicates the Earth and the universe are billions
of years old (astronomy, geology, physics, etc.)
The T.O archive has a couple FAQs on God and evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
05 May 2004 10:28:43 PM |
|
|
(VoiceOfReason) wrote in message news:<6c4d0eab.0405020240.304e6e67@posting.google.com>...
berry@pop.networkusa.net (Bennett Standeven) wrote in message news:<24c3076b.0405011601.39bb76f5@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405010632.48fdd81c@posting.google.com>...
(VoiceOfReason) wrote in message news:<6c4d0eab.0404302031.345744e4@posting.google.com>...
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<qoi490h3374bpfs4s373cn0pgfhmg774m8@4ax.com>...
<snip>
It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
claim that it does. Are they lying, or are they ignorant? Those are
the only two choices.
I think in the beginning, it tends to be ignorance. Some creation
supporters I've met were totally unaware that it's quite possible to
reconcile both religious faith and evolution. Somehow they get the
impression that accepting evolution means they have to give up on God,
which couldn't be further from the truth.
[p/ VOR]"it's quite possible to reconcile both religious faith and evolution"
What is the definition of [p/ VOR]"evolution"?
[p/ VOR]"evolution" refers to the theory developed by Charles Darwin,
and refined by later biologists during the past century and a half.
Among other things, it states that most organisms are related to one
another, and that the differences between them are produced largely
through the action of natural selection.
Yeah, what he said. :-) Plus all organisms (including man) having
evolved from previous organisms. And the earth being billions of
years old. It's not a problem for religion unless your denomination
requires adherence to the literal interpretation of the 6-day thing.
In that event you'd have problems not just with evolution, but with
*any* science that indicates the Earth and the universe are billions
of years old (astronomy, geology, physics, etc.)
The T.O archive has a couple FAQs on God and evolution.
In my opinion, it is quite possible to reconcile religious faith with
belief in the following:
most organisms are related to one another with all organisms
(including man) having derived from previous organisms,
the last universal common ancestor was the product of intelligent
design,
the differences between organisms were produced largely through the
action of variations plus the environment (which consists of the
weather and other surrounding organisms),
the variations mentioned were carefully induced in organisms' genomes
by the operation of one or more intelligent designer(s),
the earth is 4.5 billion years old,
the universe began to exist in the Big Bang out-of-nothing creation
event and is about 15 billion years old, and
the "days" of Genesis are long periods of time (or, were six 24 days
during which an intelligent designer spoke various commands; whatever
the intelligent designer spoke was as good as done, even as it took
long periods of time for the creations commanded to exist to appear in
physical form).
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Watcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
06 May 2004 10:56:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 6 May 2004 03:28:43 +0000 (UTC), (david ford) wrote:
(snip)
In my opinion, it is quite possible to reconcile religious faith with
belief in the following:
(snip)
It's possible, but what's the point? If you're going to keep the religious
faith, you don't need to reconcile it with anything. It's based on faith anyway.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
01 May 2004 01:54:17 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 May 2004 04:27:22 +0000 (UTC),
(VoiceOfReason) wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<qoi490h3374bpfs4s373cn0pgfhmg774m8@4ax.com>...
<snip>
It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
claim that it does. Are they lying, or are they ignorant? Those are
the only two choices.
I think in the beginning, it tends to be ignorance. Some creation
supporters I've met were totally unaware that it's quite possible to
reconcile both religious faith and evolution. Somehow they get the
impression that accepting evolution means they have to give up on God,
which couldn't be further from the truth.
But for the big-time anti-evilutionists - they're just a bunch of con
artists trying to sell more books. At least that's the distinct
impression I get. :-)
I agree. It also covers both the choices I proposed - lying or
ignorance.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Shaw on God's creation |
01 May 2004 08:00:51 PM |
|
|
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<7gi6905pid7l39ktgkoi2v16kas890gi01@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 1 May 2004 04:27:22 +0000 (UTC),
(VoiceOfReason) wrote:
"Thomas P." <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<qoi490h3374bpfs4s373cn0pgfhmg774m8@4ax.com>...
<snip>
It is strange that so many attacks on evolution come from not only
non-biologists but non-scientists, and so often the attacks are based
on a misrepresentation of what evolution is. Evolution says nothing
about the origins of life, but its critics repeatedly bring up the
clai | | | | | | | | | | | | |
