| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
10 Oct 2006 10:03:25 PM |
| Object: |
The Evolution Controversy |
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No, the controversy I mean is over the possible evolution of "Homo
floresiensis":
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/10/09/homo_floresiensis_two_years_ou.php
Now that's how a real science controversy works itself out - by
publication of supported argument from one side vs. the same from the
other in peer-reviewed journals.
Notice that these scientists are not posting idiot web pages and
publishing privately funded books, nor is one side whining about
getting the controversy taught in school or complaining they can't get
a fair shake. Instead, they're publishing in refereed science journals
and every interested party gets a fair hearing - as long as they have
the science to back up their position.
That's the way real science is done.
Contrast that with the sour-grapes whiney-***** idiot creationists and
so-called intelligent so-called design advocates, and you'll see the
truth of the matter.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Sgt.Sausage" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
10 Oct 2006 11:19:47 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I) happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
No, the controversy I mean is over the possible evolution of "Homo
floresiensis":
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/10/09/homo_floresiensis_two_years_ou.php
Now that's how a real science controversy works itself out - by
publication of supported argument from one side vs. the same from the
other in peer-reviewed journals.
Notice that these scientists are not posting idiot web pages and
publishing privately funded books, nor is one side whining about
getting the controversy taught in school or complaining they can't get
a fair shake. Instead, they're publishing in refereed science journals
and every interested party gets a fair hearing - as long as they have
the science to back up their position.
That's the way real science is done.
Agreed -- however "real science" does not label a theory
a "*fact*". The "fact" may be that the bible-thumpers are
correct. I don't believe them. You don't believe them -- but
they've got just as much "fact" as evolutionary theories. Neither
are proven. I'm of the opinion that neither can be proven ... however
the evidence is strongly suggesting one theory is right and one is
wrong. I'm going with the evolution side of the argument, as you
are, but calling it a fact just doesn't help our cause out in the
slightest.
Rather than call it a fact, call it what it is "a preponderance
of the evidence, and the best evidence we have available
to us today, strongly support the *theory* of evolution".
Nothing more. Nothing less. It is what it is.
Contrast that with the sour-grapes whiney-***** idiot creationists and
so-called intelligent so-called design advocates, and you'll see the
truth of the matter.
Mr. Pot ... Meet Mr. Kettle. He's the one in the Black.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
11 Oct 2006 04:32:54 PM |
|
|
"Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:ebbb4$452c2a34$42a1e606$15119@FUSE.NET:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is
the *only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution.
End of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I)
happen to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" --
however it is still just a theory.
No, the controversy I mean is over the possible evolution of "Homo
floresiensis":
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/10/09/homo_floresiensis_two_years_ou
.php
Now that's how a real science controversy works itself out - by
publication of supported argument from one side vs. the same from the
other in peer-reviewed journals.
Notice that these scientists are not posting idiot web pages and
publishing privately funded books, nor is one side whining about
getting the controversy taught in school or complaining they can't
get a fair shake. Instead, they're publishing in refereed science
journals and every interested party gets a fair hearing - as long as
they have the science to back up their position.
That's the way real science is done.
Agreed -- however "real science" does not label a theory
a "*fact*". The "fact" may be that the bible-thumpers are
correct. I don't believe them. You don't believe them -- but
they've got just as much "fact" as evolutionary theories. Neither
are proven. I'm of the opinion that neither can be proven ... however
the evidence is strongly suggesting one theory is right and one is
wrong. I'm going with the evolution side of the argument, as you
are, but calling it a fact just doesn't help our cause out in the
slightest.
Rather than call it a fact, call it what it is "a preponderance
of the evidence, and the best evidence we have available
to us today, strongly support the *theory* of evolution".
Nothing more. Nothing less. It is what it is.
Sure...I put the theory of evolution right next to the following
theories:
Relativity
Quantum Mechanics
Music
Gravity
and more
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carlos Trevino" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
11 Oct 2006 12:57:22 AM |
|
|
"Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ebbb4$452c2a34$42a1e606$15119@FUSE.NET...
Agreed -- however "real science" does not label a theory
a "*fact*". The "fact" may be that the bible-thumpers are
correct. I don't believe them. You don't believe them -- but
they've got just as much "fact" as evolutionary theories. Neither
are proven. I'm of the opinion that neither can be proven ... however
the evidence is strongly suggesting one theory is right and one is
wrong. I'm going with the evolution side of the argument, as you
are, but calling it a fact just doesn't help our cause out in the
slightest.
Rather than call it a fact, call it what it is "a preponderance
of the evidence, and the best evidence we have available
to us today, strongly support the *theory* of evolution".
Nothing more. Nothing less. It is what it is.
Contrast that with the sour-grapes whiney-***** idiot creationists and
so-called intelligent so-called design advocates, and you'll see the
truth of the matter.
Mr. Pot ... Meet Mr. Kettle. He's the one in the Black.
Wow, this man I respect.
Carlos Trevino
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
13 Oct 2006 08:47:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:19:47 -0400, "Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I) happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
That evolution occurrs is a commonly seen fact.
The theory seeks to explain the fact.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
13 Oct 2006 09:24:32 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:19:47 -0400, "Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I) happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
That evolution occurrs is a commonly seen fact.
The theory seeks to explain the fact.
Exactly. Even if Darwins theories were shown to be complete tripe
evolution would continue to occur and we would have to find a
new explanation for it.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
14 Oct 2006 09:35:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:24:32 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:19:47 -0400, "Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I) happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
That evolution occurrs is a commonly seen fact.
The theory seeks to explain the fact.
Exactly. Even if Darwins theories were shown to be complete tripe
evolution would continue to occur and we would have to find a
new explanation for it.
And knowledge has increased far beyond that of darwin's day.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
15 Oct 2006 06:15:25 AM |
|
|
In article <q0m2j2173008gj86prupd2o5g901u6etsu@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:24:32 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:19:47 -0400, "Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I) happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
That evolution occurrs is a commonly seen fact.
The theory seeks to explain the fact.
Exactly. Even if Darwins theories were shown to be complete tripe
evolution would continue to occur and we would have to find a
new explanation for it.
And knowledge has increased far beyond that of darwin's day.
I've always wondered what Darwin might have done if he had access to DNA
and protein analysis technology, electron microscopy, tomography, and
all of the new fossil finds. Of course 150 years from now people might
be saying the same about us. Science marches on, religion stays stuck in
the same old ditch.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
15 Oct 2006 06:07:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:15:25 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <q0m2j2173008gj86prupd2o5g901u6etsu@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:24:32 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:19:47 -0400, "Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I) happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
That evolution occurrs is a commonly seen fact.
The theory seeks to explain the fact.
Exactly. Even if Darwins theories were shown to be complete tripe
evolution would continue to occur and we would have to find a
new explanation for it.
And knowledge has increased far beyond that of darwin's day.
I've always wondered what Darwin might have done if he had access to DNA
and protein analysis technology, electron microscopy, tomography, and
all of the new fossil finds. Of course 150 years from now people might
be saying the same about us. Science marches on, religion stays stuck in
the same old ditch.
No might about it. Such is the case. There will be words, concepts,
idea, common items, questions, which can't be conceived of now based on
the dearth of information.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
16 Oct 2006 06:49:30 AM |
|
|
In article <m3u4j2tn4qcupsc0gm0qed9lgpn0vlqhuv@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:15:25 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <q0m2j2173008gj86prupd2o5g901u6etsu@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:24:32 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:19:47 -0400, "Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I) happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
That evolution occurrs is a commonly seen fact.
The theory seeks to explain the fact.
Exactly. Even if Darwins theories were shown to be complete tripe
evolution would continue to occur and we would have to find a
new explanation for it.
And knowledge has increased far beyond that of darwin's day.
I've always wondered what Darwin might have done if he had access to DNA
and protein analysis technology, electron microscopy, tomography, and
all of the new fossil finds. Of course 150 years from now people might
be saying the same about us. Science marches on, religion stays stuck in
the same old ditch.
No might about it. Such is the case. There will be words, concepts,
idea, common items, questions, which can't be conceived of now based on
the dearth of information.
I'm sure that there are many such things. I started studying science in
the 50s and 60s and back then, we couldn't even dream of what we are
capable of doing today. Not only knowledge, but technology to obtain
such knowledge has advanced exponentially.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
18 Oct 2006 04:44:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:49:30 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article <m3u4j2tn4qcupsc0gm0qed9lgpn0vlqhuv@4ax.com>,
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
[]
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I) happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
That evolution occurrs is a commonly seen fact.
The theory seeks to explain the fact.
Exactly. Even if Darwins theories were shown to be complete tripe
evolution would continue to occur and we would have to find a
new explanation for it.
And knowledge has increased far beyond that of darwin's day.
I've always wondered what Darwin might have done if he had access to DNA
and protein analysis technology, electron microscopy, tomography, and
all of the new fossil finds. Of course 150 years from now people might
be saying the same about us. Science marches on, religion stays stuck in
the same old ditch.
No might about it. Such is the case. There will be words, concepts,
idea, common items, questions, which can't be conceived of now based on
the dearth of information.
I'm sure that there are many such things. I started studying science in
the 50s and 60s and back then, we couldn't even dream of what we are
capable of doing today. Not only knowledge, but technology to obtain
such knowledge has advanced exponentially.
Oh yes. I've worked with stuff that was '***** Tracey' type things when
I was a child. And, on the same aircraft was equipment crystal
controlled, finite component, mechanically tuned, and air cooled. Stone
age and space age stuff on the same aircraft. Wild.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
15 Oct 2006 05:39:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:35:46 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:24:32 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myrubbishbin@notatleswell.freeuk.net> wrote in alt.atheism
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:47:57 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:19:47 -0400, "Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I) happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
That evolution occurrs is a commonly seen fact.
The theory seeks to explain the fact.
Exactly. Even if Darwins theories were shown to be complete tripe
evolution would continue to occur and we would have to find a
new explanation for it.
And knowledge has increased far beyond that of darwin's day.
but not necessarily universally.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
11 Oct 2006 05:30:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:19:47 -0400, "Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Agreed -- however "real science" does not label a theory
a "*fact*".
Nor does it confuse "evolution" (which is a fact) with "the [which of
the many?] theory of evolution". Evolution happens - there's no
question about that.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
11 Oct 2006 03:40:58 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:19:47 -0400, in alt.atheism , "Sgt.Sausage"
<nobody@nowhere.com> in <ebbb4$452c2a34$42a1e606$15119@FUSE.NET>
wrote:
[snip]
Agreed -- however "real science" does not label a theory
a "*fact*". The "fact" may be that the bible-thumpers are
correct. I don't believe them. You don't believe them -- but
they've got just as much "fact" as evolutionary theories.
Sorry, but we have the fact of gravity and a theory of gravity, we
have the fact of acoustics and the theory of acoustics. The theory of
evolution explains the fact of evolution.
Neither
are proven.
Science does not prove. But Common Descent is as well established as
the orbit of Pluto.
I'm of the opinion that neither can be proven
Because science does not prove. But creationism, to the extent that it
is science, is *refuted* by the evidence. And to the extent it is not
refuted it is not science.
... however
the evidence is strongly suggesting one theory is right and one is
wrong.
There is no scientific theory of creationism so it can't be wrong.
I'm going with the evolution side of the argument, as you
are, but calling it a fact just doesn't help our cause out in the
slightest.
But evolution is a fact. Here is an illustrative examples. What are
orbits? From one perspective orbits are our explanation, our theory,
to explain various observations of the planets over time. From a
different perspective orbits are facts that we explain with gravity
and momentum. So to Common Descent. We have a massive amount of
evidence from multiple lines. We have the pattern of genetic
similarity. We have the pattern of morphological similarity. We have
the pattern of fossils, we have the pattern of geographic distribution
of life. The explanation for all of this evidence is Common Descent.
We can then, just like orbits, turn around and explain this oh so well
supported fact with a theory of evolution that includes descent with
modification, natural selection, and drift.
Rather than call it a fact, call it what it is "a preponderance
of the evidence, and the best evidence we have available
to us today, strongly support the *theory* of evolution".
Is it a " preponderance of the evidence" that Pluto orbits the Sun or
is it a fact?
[snip]
--
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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
12 Oct 2006 01:39:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:40:58 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Is it a " preponderance of the evidence" that Pluto orbits the Sun or
is it a fact?
A preponderance of the evidence. We only have discrete orbital
measurements, not a continuous gradation from one zero-dimension point
to the next. (Sound like "missing links", if you give me a little
poetic license?) Has anyone ever actually SEEN Pluto go around the
sun? How many times?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
12 Oct 2006 04:08:04 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:39:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <e17ri2d3avdaagvtc3pnm0ltg9fvq8u9de@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:40:58 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Is it a " preponderance of the evidence" that Pluto orbits the Sun or
is it a fact?
A preponderance of the evidence. We only have discrete orbital
measurements, not a continuous gradation from one zero-dimension point
to the next. (Sound like "missing links", if you give me a little
poetic license?) Has anyone ever actually SEEN Pluto go around the
sun? How many times?
Then the next, obvious question: are there any facts at all?
--
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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
12 Oct 2006 12:43:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:08:04 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:39:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <e17ri2d3avdaagvtc3pnm0ltg9fvq8u9de@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:40:58 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Is it a " preponderance of the evidence" that Pluto orbits the Sun or
is it a fact?
A preponderance of the evidence. We only have discrete orbital
measurements, not a continuous gradation from one zero-dimension point
to the next. (Sound like "missing links", if you give me a little
poetic license?) Has anyone ever actually SEEN Pluto go around the
sun? How many times?
Then the next, obvious question: are there any facts at all?
Probably not until you get down to the Planck level. It's entirely
possible that nothing even exists above that level - they we're seeing
patterns where there are none.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then comes evil?
-Epicurus, 3rd c. B
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
12 Oct 2006 11:14:18 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:08:04 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:39:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <e17ri2d3avdaagvtc3pnm0ltg9fvq8u9de@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:40:58 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Is it a " preponderance of the evidence" that Pluto orbits the Sun or
is it a fact?
A preponderance of the evidence. We only have discrete orbital
measurements, not a continuous gradation from one zero-dimension point
to the next. (Sound like "missing links", if you give me a little
poetic license?) Has anyone ever actually SEEN Pluto go around the
sun? How many times?
Then the next, obvious question: are there any facts at all?
Probably not until you get down to the Planck level. It's entirely
possible that nothing even exists above that level - they we're seeing
patterns where there are none.
I think, therefore a yam.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "XaurreauX" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
20 Oct 2006 02:50:54 PM |
|
|
"I think, therefore a yam."
"Ri rink, rhererore ri ram." -- Scooby Doo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
13 Oct 2006 02:10:23 AM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2006 16:14:18 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:08:04 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:39:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <e17ri2d3avdaagvtc3pnm0ltg9fvq8u9de@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:40:58 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Is it a " preponderance of the evidence" that Pluto orbits the Sun or
is it a fact?
A preponderance of the evidence. We only have discrete orbital
measurements, not a continuous gradation from one zero-dimension point
to the next. (Sound like "missing links", if you give me a little
poetic license?) Has anyone ever actually SEEN Pluto go around the
sun? How many times?
Then the next, obvious question: are there any facts at all?
Probably not until you get down to the Planck level. It's entirely
possible that nothing even exists above that level - they we're seeing
patterns where there are none.
I think, therefore a yam.
Wadda potata.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for
failing to produce the evidence."
- Wayne M. Delia+
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
12 Oct 2006 04:20:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:43:07 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <u0esi29dsknqjpokiqh521s13f7v544g1r@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:08:04 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:39:03 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <e17ri2d3avdaagvtc3pnm0ltg9fvq8u9de@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:40:58 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Is it a " preponderance of the evidence" that Pluto orbits the Sun or
is it a fact?
A preponderance of the evidence. We only have discrete orbital
measurements, not a continuous gradation from one zero-dimension point
to the next. (Sound like "missing links", if you give me a little
poetic license?) Has anyone ever actually SEEN Pluto go around the
sun? How many times?
Then the next, obvious question: are there any facts at all?
Probably not until you get down to the Planck level.
How can we have facts at that level? All we have then is some
inferences from layers of observation.
It's entirely
possible that nothing even exists above that level - they we're seeing
patterns where there are none.
ISTM that if a word does not refer to anything then it is a useless
word. Either we should abandon "fact" or understand that your meaning
might be a bit too restrictive.
--
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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
12 Oct 2006 07:03:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:20:56 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:43:07 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <u0esi29dsknqjpokiqh521s13f7v544g1r@4ax.com>
wrote:
Then the next, obvious question: are there any facts at all?
Probably not until you get down to the Planck level.
How can we have facts at that level? All we have then is some
inferences from layers of observation.
Observation is a macro thing.
It's entirely
possible that nothing even exists above that level - they we're seeing
patterns where there are none.
ISTM that if a word does not refer to anything then it is a useless
word. Either we should abandon "fact" or understand that your meaning
might be a bit too restrictive.
Or that, while you're wherever you are, I've pulled your leg to where
I am, Matt. :)
Of course there are "facts", within the definition we've assigned to
the word. Things that we know to a level of certainty that we'd be
foolish to question them. It's a fact that you're not me, so my
typing this is actually imparting information to another mind when it
gets read.
Now, we could all be subroutines in a computer, so what we call facts
are nothing more than constants and variables being used by those
subroutines, but it's just as likely ("just" being a VERY small
fraction) that I'm real and you're a figment of my imagination, and
going down that path proves nothing. "Never argue with a solipsist -
you might discover that he's right."
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
12 Oct 2006 11:28:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:03:50 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <n14ti292ifk0jm8oaikae2krje1tpads1r@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:20:56 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:43:07 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <u0esi29dsknqjpokiqh521s13f7v544g1r@4ax.com>
wrote:
Then the next, obvious question: are there any facts at all?
Probably not until you get down to the Planck level.
How can we have facts at that level? All we have then is some
inferences from layers of observation.
Observation is a macro thing.
It's entirely
possible that nothing even exists above that level - they we're seeing
patterns where there are none.
ISTM that if a word does not refer to anything then it is a useless
word. Either we should abandon "fact" or understand that your meaning
might be a bit too restrictive.
Or that, while you're wherever you are, I've pulled your leg to where
I am, Matt. :)
You think I didn't know that? Sheesh.
Of course there are "facts", within the definition we've assigned to
the word. Things that we know to a level of certainty that we'd be
foolish to question them. It's a fact that you're not me, so my
typing this is actually imparting information to another mind when it
gets read.
Now, we could all be subroutines in a computer, so what we call facts
are nothing more than constants and variables being used by those
subroutines, but it's just as likely ("just" being a VERY small
fraction) that I'm real and you're a figment of my imagination, and
going down that path proves nothing. "Never argue with a solipsist -
you might discover that he's right."
What is this "he" you refer to?
--
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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
13 Oct 2006 02:11:53 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:28:47 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:03:50 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <n14ti292ifk0jm8oaikae2krje1tpads1r@4ax.com>
wrote:
"Never argue with a solipsist - you might discover that he's right."
What is this "he" you refer to?
He, you, me - they all mean the same thing. But you're right:
"Never argue with a solipsist - you might discover that you're right."
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
13 Oct 2006 02:40:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:11:53 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <fdtti2pudkbj0htlhs0079gqo7gve7e5ri@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:28:47 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:03:50 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <n14ti292ifk0jm8oaikae2krje1tpads1r@4ax.com>
wrote:
"Never argue with a solipsist - you might discover that he's right."
What is this "he" you refer to?
He, you, me - they all mean the same thing. But you're right:
"Never argue with a solipsist - you might discover that you're right."
I have a bit more confidence:
Never argue with a solipsist - I might discover I am right.
--
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: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
13 Oct 2006 12:48:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:52 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:11:53 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <fdtti2pudkbj0htlhs0079gqo7gve7e5ri@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:28:47 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:03:50 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <n14ti292ifk0jm8oaikae2krje1tpads1r@4ax.com>
wrote:
"Never argue with a solipsist - you might discover that he's right."
What is this "he" you refer to?
He, you, me - they all mean the same thing. But you're right:
"Never argue with a solipsist - you might discover that you're right."
I have a bit more confidence:
Never argue with a solipsist - I might discover I am right.
That's what you said.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
13 Oct 2006 02:43:08 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:40:52 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
<l4vti25t2fhks29k8vggc2ti9tqnr2td0l@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:11:53 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <fdtti2pudkbj0htlhs0079gqo7gve7e5ri@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:28:47 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:03:50 -0400, in alt.atheism , Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> in <n14ti292ifk0jm8oaikae2krje1tpads1r@4ax.com>
wrote:
"Never argue with a solipsist - you might discover that he's right."
What is this "he" you refer to?
He, you, me - they all mean the same thing. But you're right:
"Never argue with a solipsist - you might discover that you're right."
I have a bit more confidence:
Never argue with a solipsist - I might discover I am right.
But, but, then I would discover that I was wrong as well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zooropa" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
10 Oct 2006 11:53:04 PM |
|
|
Sgt.Sausage wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I) happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
No, the controversy I mean is over the possible evolution of "Homo
floresiensis":
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/10/09/homo_floresiensis_two_years_ou.php
Now that's how a real science controversy works itself out - by
publication of supported argument from one side vs. the same from the
other in peer-reviewed journals.
Notice that these scientists are not posting idiot web pages and
publishing privately funded books, nor is one side whining about
getting the controversy taught in school or complaining they can't get
a fair shake. Instead, they're publishing in refereed science journals
and every interested party gets a fair hearing - as long as they have
the science to back up their position.
That's the way real science is done.
Agreed -- however "real science" does not label a theory
a "*fact*". The "fact" may be that the bible-thumpers are
correct. I don't believe them. You don't believe them -- but
they've got just as much "fact" as evolutionary theories. Neither
are proven. I'm of the opinion that neither can be proven ... however
the evidence is strongly suggesting one theory is right and one is
wrong. I'm going with the evolution side of the argument, as you
are, but calling it a fact just doesn't help our cause out in the
slightest.
Rather than call it a fact, call it what it is "a preponderance
of the evidence, and the best evidence we have available
to us today, strongly support the *theory* of evolution".
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck you just say it's a god
damn duck. I hate that people can say things like "The sun WILL rise
tomorrow" and no one would argue with the...but to say that "Evolution
is the explanation for the diversity of life on this planet."
Technically you might be right, but it's beyond ridiculous that people
get this pedantic about evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
11 Oct 2006 12:17:37 AM |
|
|
Zooropa wrote:
Sgt.Sausage wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I) happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
No, the controversy I mean is over the possible evolution of "Homo
floresiensis":
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/10/09/homo_floresiensis_two_years_ou.php
Now that's how a real science controversy works itself out - by
publication of supported argument from one side vs. the same from the
other in peer-reviewed journals.
Notice that these scientists are not posting idiot web pages and
publishing privately funded books, nor is one side whining about
getting the controversy taught in school or complaining they can't get
a fair shake. Instead, they're publishing in refereed science journals
and every interested party gets a fair hearing - as long as they have
the science to back up their position.
That's the way real science is done.
Agreed -- however "real science" does not label a theory
a "*fact*". The "fact" may be that the bible-thumpers are
correct. I don't believe them. You don't believe them -- but
they've got just as much "fact" as evolutionary theories. Neither
are proven. I'm of the opinion that neither can be proven ... however
the evidence is strongly suggesting one theory is right and one is
wrong. I'm going with the evolution side of the argument, as you
are, but calling it a fact just doesn't help our cause out in the
slightest.
Rather than call it a fact, call it what it is "a preponderance
of the evidence, and the best evidence we have available
to us today, strongly support the *theory* of evolution".
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck you just say it's a god
damn duck. I hate that people can say things like "The sun WILL rise
tomorrow" and no one would argue with the.
Actually the Sun doesn't rise - the earth rotates.
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carlos Trevino" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
11 Oct 2006 12:58:14 AM |
|
|
"Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1160525857.402913.159320@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Zooropa wrote:
Sgt.Sausage wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1160517804.324015.315890@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Now that I have your attention, I'm not talking about *that*
controversy. There isn't one. I mean, the Theory of Evolution is
the
*only* scientific theory which explains the *fact* of evolution. End
of "controversy".
No -- it is, after all, just a theory. A theory that you (and I)
happen
to believe in based upon "a preponderance of evidence" -- however
it is still just a theory.
No, the controversy I mean is over the possible evolution of "Homo
floresiensis":
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/10/09/homo_floresiensis_two_years_ou.php
Now that's how a real science controversy works itself out - by
publication of supported argument from one side vs. the same from the
other in peer-reviewed journals.
Notice that these scientists are not posting idiot web pages and
publishing privately funded books, nor is one side whining about
getting the controversy taught in school or complaining they can't
get
a fair shake. Instead, they're publishing in refereed science
journals
and every interested party gets a fair hearing - as long as they have
the science to back up their position.
That's the way real science is done.
Agreed -- however "real science" does not label a theory
a "*fact*". The "fact" may be that the bible-thumpers are
correct. I don't believe them. You don't believe them -- but
they've got just as much "fact" as evolutionary theories. Neither
are proven. I'm of the opinion that neither can be proven ... however
the evidence is strongly suggesting one theory is right and one is
wrong. I'm going with the evolution side of the argument, as you
are, but calling it a fact just doesn't help our cause out in the
slightest.
Rather than call it a fact, call it what it is "a preponderance
of the evidence, and the best evidence we have available
to us today, strongly support the *theory* of evolution".
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck you just say it's a god
damn duck. I hate that people can say things like "The sun WILL rise
tomorrow" and no one would argue with the.
Actually the Sun doesn't rise - the earth rotates.
8-)
Mark.
This man cracks me up!
Carlos Trevino
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Evolution Controversy |
12 Oct 2006 01:33:35 AM |
|
|
On 10 Oct 2006 17:17:37 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
Actually the Sun doesn't rise - the earth rotates.
8-)
So do most fundies.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
