| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2003 12:10:47 PM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either
side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching proportions,
"potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a long-held
idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes
its place." And Britain's New Scientist observed that "an increasing number
of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . .
argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at
all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.
.
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: new scientist quote: was TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 08:23:11 AM |
|
|
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:6h2tjvsq65n387be4taf2eu64srqvikg1l@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:10:47 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from
either
side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching
proportions,
"potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a
long-held
idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes
its place."
Scientists have a long history of forming camps proposing one theory
over another... until evidence appears which settles the matter. It is
a healthy process; much healthier than dogmatically following
bronze-age texts. Wouldn't you agree?
Yes I do. But school kids should be taught this as well. as for bronze age
text, arguments are formed about them as well. this does not discard the
idea human may have their start in a whole different arena.
I've said it before. I'll say it again. Evolution isn't theory; it is
observable fact.
But it does not neccesarily indicte, it is the origin of humans on the
planet.
The theories revolve around the *mechanisms*
involved, not whether it happened at all. In this, there are
disagreements amongst the neo-darwinists.
And Britain's New Scientist observed that "an increasing number
of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . .
argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory
at
all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.
OK, now provide the issue number that that quote was purportedly taken
from. I did a Google search and found it repeated several times... but
nowhere does the word "evolutionist" appear in the
www.newscientist.com search engine.
New Scientist, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," by Michael Ruse,
June 25, 1981, p. 828
As soon as I saw the word, alarm bells started ringing. I've been an
on-off reader of New Scientist for many years now and the word
"evolutionist" is not one that I ever remember seeing. Y'see, the
mistake that creationists seem to repeatedly make is that
non-creationists lend any credibility to creationism whatsoever.
Certainly not enough to come up with a word like "evolutionists".
here it is again:
.. New Scientist, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," by Michael Ruse,
June 25, 1981, p. 828
great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: new scientist quote: was TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 10:19:34 AM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:upM%a.5533$QF2.2217584775@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f8209$0$8960$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:6h2tjvsq65n387be4taf2eu64srqvikg1l@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:10:47 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from
either
side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching
proportions,
"potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a
long-held
idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one
takes
its place."
Scientists have a long history of forming camps proposing one theory
over another... until evidence appears which settles the matter. It is
a healthy process; much healthier than dogmatically following
bronze-age texts. Wouldn't you agree?
Yes I do. But school kids should be taught this as well. as for bronze
age
text, arguments are formed about them as well. this does not discard the
idea human may have their start in a whole different arena.
I've said it before. I'll say it again. Evolution isn't theory; it is
observable fact.
many scientist would disagree, they cal evolution both.
But it does not neccesarily indicte, it is the origin of humans on the
planet.
It is *conceivable* that humans have a separate origin. Perhaps some
primitive hominds found a black monolith, which altered their genetics and
gave them the gift of gab. However, this is speculation without evidence.
same as humans devolping from a common ancestors with king kong... it is
speculation.
What we do know is that humans are composed of animal cells, are
essentially
tubular in structure, with a mouth, stomach, intestines, colon and *****;
are
quadrapeds with livers, kidneys, mammaries, lungs, gonads, brains, eyes,
ears, skin, hair; exhibit aggression, hunger, lust, love, thirst and
kindness -- very like other mammals on the planet.
same thing can be said about car.. automobiles.. it does not mean that
toyotas and fords are related... or the same because they have an engine,
four tires, etc.
We have also found intermediate forms between humans and previously known
species of apes, in accordance with predictions of the Theory of
Evolution -- just as we have with most other biological forms.
Humans are apes per biology ne'est pas?
The theories revolve around the *mechanisms*
involved, not whether it happened at all. In this, there are
disagreements amongst the neo-darwinists.
And Britain's New Scientist observed that "an increasing number
of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists .
..
.
argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific
theory
at
all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual
credentials.
OK, now provide the issue number that that quote was purportedly taken
from. I did a Google search and found it repeated several times... but
nowhere does the word "evolutionist" appear in the
www.newscientist.com search engine.
New Scientist, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," by Michael
Ruse,
June 25, 1981, p. 828
As soon as I saw the word, alarm bells started ringing. I've been an
on-off reader of New Scientist for many years now and the word
"evolutionist" is not one that I ever remember seeing. Y'see, the
mistake that creationists seem to repeatedly make is that
non-creationists lend any credibility to creationism whatsoever.
Certainly not enough to come up with a word like "evolutionists".
here it is again:
. New Scientist, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," by Michael
Ruse,
June 25, 1981, p. 828
great Bill Hicks
huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: new scientist quote: was TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 07:05:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:19:34 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:upM%a.5533$QF2.2217584775@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f8209$0$8960$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Craig McDonald" <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:6h2tjvsq65n387be4taf2eu64srqvikg1l@4ax.com...
I've said it before. I'll say it again. Evolution isn't theory; it is
observable fact.
many scientist would disagree, they cal evolution both.
Evolution is a fact. There are theories ABOUT evolution. Your lack
of familiarity with the English language doesn't change that.
It is *conceivable* that humans have a separate origin. Perhaps some
primitive hominds found a black monolith, which altered their genetics and
gave them the gift of gab. However, this is speculation without evidence.
same as humans devolping from a common ancestors with king kong... it is
speculation.
It's an explanation of evidence that points to it.
What we do know is that humans are composed of animal cells, are essentially
tubular in structure, with a mouth, stomach, intestines, colon and *****; are
quadrapeds with livers, kidneys, mammaries, lungs, gonads, brains, eyes,
ears, skin, hair; exhibit aggression, hunger, lust, love, thirst and
kindness -- very like other mammals on the planet.
same thing can be said about car.. automobiles.. it does not mean that
toyotas and fords are related... or the same because they have an engine,
four tires, etc.
Automobiles aren't alive. Your "analogy" is nonsense.
We have also found intermediate forms between humans and previously known
species of apes, in accordance with predictions of the Theory of
Evolution -- just as we have with most other biological forms.
Humans are apes per biology ne'est pas?
Per definition.
--
"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 Tic
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
16 Aug 2003 02:09:07 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8NudnYPckds596OiXTWJhQ@comcast.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote
Evolutionist Hitching agreed,
What are his credentials?
look him up ..do a google search
Why do you call him an "Evolutionist"?
He accepts evolution, but does not agree with certain aspects of it..
As far as I can tell, the man has been writing anti evolution
articles since at least 1982.
That was 21 years ago.
so?
Is an "Evolutionist" someone who's against the teaching of
evolution?
are you saying that they are all ahappy unified club?
If not, why are you misrepresenting this man as an "Evolutionist,"
whatever that's supposed to mean?
look it up...
P.S. Claiming there's a dispute is a far cry form demonstrating
a dispute.
ah the good ole word play...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 07:08:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 08:52:02 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dLKdnSQ74-IuWKOiU-KYvw@comcast.com...
He's never done anything but fight science in over 20 years,
as far as I can tell. If you have a citation that demonstrates
otherwise, you've thus far been unwilling to share it with us.
and thast does not change the fact that he believes in evolution
MANY creationists do.
and is an evolutionist
No such thing.
you have proven my point.
You don't have a point.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
16 Aug 2003 04:14:45 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote
news:<3f3e65f4$0$68244$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either
side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching proportions,
"potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a long-held
idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes
its place." And Britain's New Scientist observed that "an increasing number
of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . .
argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at
all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.
So many lies, so little time. Here's another one of Jabriol's
exposed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/:
"Francis Hitching is sometimes represented as being a scientist by
antievolutionist sources that quote him -- a "well-known evolutionist"
as one antievolutionist put it -- when he was really a
sensationalistic television script writer who was neither a scientist
nor had scientific training."
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
16 Aug 2003 12:44:21 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3e65f4$0$68244$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from
either
side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching proportions,
"potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a
long-held
idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes
its place." And Britain's New Scientist observed that "an increasing
number
of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . .
argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory
at
all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.
You didn't write that paragraph, did you?
By the way, Hitching is not a scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
16 Aug 2003 02:26:50 PM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:f4u%a.1794$Br4.106768534@twister1.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3e65f4$0$68244$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from
either
side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching
proportions,
"potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a
long-held
idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one
takes
its place." And Britain's New Scientist observed that "an increasing
number
of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . .
argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory
at
all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual
credentials.
You didn't write that paragraph, did you?
By the way, Hitching is not a scientist.
no but he is an evolutionist: from the t.o archives...
many people belive in evolution...
Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books, The Neck of the
Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force, but
does not like Darwinism. He wrote in this book [The Neck of the Giraffe,
Ticknor & Fields, New Haven, Connecticut, 1982, p. 12 (p. 4, paperback)]
that:
For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying
principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a
surprising amount of trouble. Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to
mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long
period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the
last two centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biol- ogy and many
other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation
who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred approaches
certainty in scientific terms.... On the other hand Darwinism (or
neo-Darwinism, its modern version) is a theory that seeks to explain
evolution. It has not, contrary to general belief, and despite very great
efforts, been proved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
16 Aug 2003 09:17:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:26:50 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:f4u%a.1794$Br4.106768534@twister1.starband.net...
By the way, Hitching is not a scientist.
no but he is an evolutionist
If he's not a scientist he can't be an evolutionist. At best he can
be a person who accepts that evolution occurs, but his opinion on the
subject isn't worth any more than the opinion of any other
non-scientist. In fact, he's a creationist who admits that evolution
occurs.
from the t.o archives...
From the archives:
"Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html (showing an
anti-evolutionary stance)
From Hitching's own book: "Evolution of life over a very long period
of time is a fact"
"by critics of evolution (eg, Hitching, 1982"
IOW, all the references show or claim that Hitching is, contrary to
your claim, an ANTI-evolutionist, even though, in his own book he
claims, contrary to your claim, that evolution DOES occur.
many people belive in evolution...
Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books, The Neck of the
Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force, but
does not like Darwinism.
Who cares what a creationist thinks about evolution? BTW, Darwinism
is an old claim that's not accepted any longer. And hasn't been in a
long time.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 08:13:03 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:footjv0vijsftu7902efbcsdgcr3ujks3b@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:26:50 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:f4u%a.1794$Br4.106768534@twister1.starband.net...
By the way, Hitching is not a scientist.
no but he is an evolutionist
If he's not a scientist he can't be an evolutionist.
Therefore only scientist can be evolutionists? that doesnt sound right.
At best he can
be a person who accepts that evolution occurs, but his opinion on the
subject isn't worth any more than the opinion of any other
non-scientist. In fact, he's a creationist who admits that evolution
occurs.
creationevolutionists.. new terminology?
from the t.o archives...
From the archives:
"Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html (showing an
anti-evolutionary stance)
From Hitching's own book: "Evolution of life over a very long period
of time is a fact"
"by critics of evolution (eg, Hitching, 1982"
IOW, all the references show or claim that Hitching is, contrary to
your claim, an ANTI-evolutionist, even though, in his own book he
claims, contrary to your claim, that evolution DOES occur.
the FAQ call him an evolutionist..nuff said?
many people belive in evolution...
Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books, The Neck of the
Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force,
but
does not like Darwinism.
Who cares what a creationist thinks about evolution? BTW, Darwinism
is an old claim that's not accepted any longer. And hasn't been in a
long time.
apprently it was important enough to put in the FAQ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 09:05:37 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f8208$0$8960$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:footjv0vijsftu7902efbcsdgcr3ujks3b@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:26:50 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:f4u%a.1794$Br4.106768534@twister1.starband.net...
By the way, Hitching is not a scientist.
no but he is an evolutionist
If he's not a scientist he can't be an evolutionist.
Therefore only scientist can be evolutionists? that doesnt sound right.
Evolutionist is a very poor term and should be avoided. It is an obvious
attempt to equate science with religion.
At best he can
be a person who accepts that evolution occurs, but his opinion on the
subject isn't worth any more than the opinion of any other
non-scientist. In fact, he's a creationist who admits that evolution
occurs.
creationevolutionists.. new terminology?
Same point as above. You are attempting to assert a dogmatism to scientific
opinion that doesn't accurately reflect reality.
from the t.o archives...
From the archives:
"Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html (showing an
anti-evolutionary stance)
From Hitching's own book: "Evolution of life over a very long period
of time is a fact"
"by critics of evolution (eg, Hitching, 1982"
IOW, all the references show or claim that Hitching is, contrary to
your claim, an ANTI-evolutionist, even though, in his own book he
claims, contrary to your claim, that evolution DOES occur.
the FAQ call him an evolutionist..nuff said?
Citation, please. Here is a Google search of "hitching, evolutionist" on
talk.origins:
http://tinyurl.com/k9vy
many people belive in evolution...
Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books, The Neck of the
Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic
force,
but
does not like Darwinism.
Who cares what a creationist thinks about evolution? BTW, Darwinism
is an old claim that's not accepted any longer. And hasn't been in a
long time.
apprently it was important enough to put in the FAQ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 10:20:23 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f9b16$0$215$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bZL%a.5528$az2.2217213981@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f8208$0$8960$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:footjv0vijsftu7902efbcsdgcr3ujks3b@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:26:50 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:f4u%a.1794$Br4.106768534@twister1.starband.net...
By the way, Hitching is not a scientist.
no but he is an evolutionist
If he's not a scientist he can't be an evolutionist.
Therefore only scientist can be evolutionists? that doesnt sound
right.
Evolutionist is a very poor term and should be avoided. It is an obvious
attempt to equate science with religion.
how would you call a supporter of evolution in english proper?
A scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 11:17:47 AM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:h3N%a.5542$HR2.2218174590@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f9b16$0$215$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bZL%a.5528$az2.2217213981@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f8208$0$8960$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:footjv0vijsftu7902efbcsdgcr3ujks3b@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:26:50 -0400, "jabriol"
<jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:f4u%a.1794$Br4.106768534@twister1.starband.net...
By the way, Hitching is not a scientist.
no but he is an evolutionist
If he's not a scientist he can't be an evolutionist.
Therefore only scientist can be evolutionists? that doesnt sound
right.
Evolutionist is a very poor term and should be avoided. It is an
obvious
attempt to equate science with religion.
how would you call a supporter of evolution in english proper?
A scientist.
And if a scientist disagree.. that makes him what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 12:16:52 PM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:92O%a.1924$Ks.144228418@twister1.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3faabf$0$8949$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:h3N%a.5542$HR2.2218174590@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f9b16$0$215$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bZL%a.5528$az2.2217213981@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f8208$0$8960$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:footjv0vijsftu7902efbcsdgcr3ujks3b@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:26:50 -0400, "jabriol"
<jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:f4u%a.1794$Br4.106768534@twister1.starband.net...
By the way, Hitching is not a scientist.
no but he is an evolutionist
If he's not a scientist he can't be an evolutionist.
Therefore only scientist can be evolutionists? that doesnt
sound
right.
Evolutionist is a very poor term and should be avoided. It is an
obvious
attempt to equate science with religion.
how would you call a supporter of evolution in english proper?
A scientist.
And if a scientist disagree.. that makes him what?
If his disagreement is supported by the evidence, then we might call him a
Nobel prize winner. I presume this is hypothetical?
No, actually I wnat your defintion of what do you call all those people who
has been forcefed evolutionary theory since graade school, and now believes
in evolution as the only mean man got here to brgin with..
are they called evolutionist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 01:15:34 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3fb89a$0$8956$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:92O%a.1924$Ks.144228418@twister1.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3faabf$0$8949$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:h3N%a.5542$HR2.2218174590@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f9b16$0$215$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:bZL%a.5528$az2.2217213981@twister2.starband.net...
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f3f8208$0$8960$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:footjv0vijsftu7902efbcsdgcr3ujks3b@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:26:50 -0400, "jabriol"
<jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:f4u%a.1794$Br4.106768534@twister1.starband.net...
By the way, Hitching is not a scientist.
no but he is an evolutionist
If he's not a scientist he can't be an evolutionist.
Therefore only scientist can be evolutionists? that doesnt
sound
right.
Evolutionist is a very poor term and should be avoided. It is an
obvious
attempt to equate science with religion.
how would you call a supporter of evolution in english proper?
A scientist.
And if a scientist disagree.. that makes him what?
If his disagreement is supported by the evidence, then we might call him
a
Nobel prize winner. I presume this is hypothetical?
No, actually I wnat your defintion of what do you call all those people
who
has been forcefed evolutionary theory since graade school, and now
believes
in evolution as the only mean man got here to brgin with..
are they called evolutionist?
Originally, you asked "how would you call a supporter of evolution in
english proper?"
Then you asked "And if a scientist disagree.. that makes him what?"
Now you are asking what are "people who has been forcefed evolutionary
theory since grade school"
You are trying to equate each of these questions with the word
"evolutionist," but the definitions are divergent. What is the point of this
sequence of semantics other than to evade the subject of biological
evolution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zed" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
18 Aug 2003 01:54:22 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3f400bfc$0$224$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>...
Because it seem to me, that there is no definite of the term "evolutionst".
Since you invented the term (remember your defintion), then this is
not surprising.
or it depends on what the layman consider it to be. hence my questions
Since when does the opinion of non-scientists decide on scientific
matters? Have you forgotten the churhch's previous attempts (for
instance, the claim that the sun revolves around the earth)? The fact
that some guy "believes" in evolution and then adds his own personal
twist to it, does not make his view a contender with scientific
theories.
Your arguing over "who is an evolutionists" is a transparent attempt
at evasion. But the real issue is whether evolutionary theory is true
or not. You brought up FH's name, so can you give a citation to a
peer-reviewed article in an academic journal in the field of the
natural sciences written by Hitchins (NOT quotes from Hitchings's
self-published book, NOT quotes from theological journals) in which
you can find the results of an experiment or any other kind of
empirical evidence that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory?
That is how an argument on the merits of scientific theories is
conducted.
But in case all this doesn't sink in - one final question. Suppose I
come to you and say: "I am a 'creationist', only that I believe that
god created only animals that weigh up to 50kg, and Satan created the
rest." Does this show creationinst disagreements? No, this shows
nothing. So what makes you think that a moronic argument like this has
any force against evolutionary theory?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 05:56:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:15:34 GMT, "Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
You are trying to equate each of these questions with the word
"evolutionist," but the definitions are divergent. What is the point of this
sequence of semantics other than to evade the subject of biological
evolution?
Evading the fact that Jabbers never evolved above slime mold?
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could beunder-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
18 Aug 2003 10:50:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:12:32 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:wDP%a.5560$7T3.2221952118@twister2.starband.net...
You are trying to equate each of these questions with the word
"evolutionist," but the definitions are divergent. What is the point of this
sequence of semantics other than to evade the subject of biological
evolution?
Because it seem to me, that there is no definite of the term "evolutionst".
There isn't, so why do you keep using it?
or it depends on what the layman consider it to be. hence my questions
Biological evolution is a technical term, not a lay term.
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 05:55:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:17:47 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
how would you call a supporter of evolution in english proper?
A scientist.
And if a scientist disagree.. that makes him what?
Quote a scientist, published in a peer-reviewed journal, whose field
is biological, who disagrees that alleles change in breeding
populations over time.
After you've exhausted all your sources and can't find a reference
even close to that, you can admit that science doesn't disagree about
evolution being a fact.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 05:52:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:13:03 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:footjv0vijsftu7902efbcsdgcr3ujks3b@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:26:50 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:f4u%a.1794$Br4.106768534@twister1.starband.net...
By the way, Hitching is not a scientist.
no but he is an evolutionist
If he's not a scientist he can't be an evolutionist.
Therefore only scientist can be evolutionists? that doesnt sound right.
No one can be an "evolutionist" - the word is meaningless. But the
opinion of a non-scientist on evolution is also meaningless. Would
you accept an electrician's word on nuclear chemistry? A
neurosurgeon's word on astrophysics?
At best he can
be a person who accepts that evolution occurs, but his opinion on the
subject isn't worth any more than the opinion of any other
non-scientist. In fact, he's a creationist who admits that evolution
occurs.
creationevolutionists.. new terminology?
Old terminology, fundy type. Make up a word and ask others why they
won't accept it.
from the t.o archives...
From the archives:
"Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html (showing an
anti-evolutionary stance)
From Hitching's own book: "Evolution of life over a very long period
of time is a fact"
"by critics of evolution (eg, Hitching, 1982"
IOW, all the references show or claim that Hitching is, contrary to
your claim, an ANTI-evolutionist, even though, in his own book he
claims, contrary to your claim, that evolution DOES occur.
the FAQ call him an evolutionist..nuff said?
The faqs call him a creationist. Is your attention span so short that
you forget what you read after 6 lines?
many people belive in evolution...
Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books, The Neck of the
Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force, but
does not like Darwinism.
Who cares what a creationist thinks about evolution? BTW, Darwinism
is an old claim that's not accepted any longer. And hasn't been in a
long time.
apprently it was important enough to put in the FAQ.
The Trojan horse is put into history books. That doesn't mean that
it's parked outside your house.
Go buy a brain. Even if it's totally non-functional it'll be working
better than what you have now.
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
18 Aug 2003 04:58:14 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:9g10kvcm4jokn2dicfjn34rbkbkd9pusb2@Pern.rk...
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:13:03 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:footjv0vijsftu7902efbcsdgcr3ujks3b@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:26:50 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
posted in alt.atheism:
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:f4u%a.1794$Br4.106768534@twister1.starband.net...
By the way, Hitching is not a scientist.
no but he is an evolutionist
If he's not a scientist he can't be an evolutionist.
Therefore only scientist can be evolutionists? that doesnt sound right.
No one can be an "evolutionist" - the word is meaningless. But the
opinion of a non-scientist on evolution is also meaningless. Would
you accept an electrician's word on nuclear chemistry? A
neurosurgeon's word on astrophysics?
knowledge is not exclusive, if they were citing from peer reviewed material,
or science journal based on the material, what would be wrong with that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brett Siata" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 10:20:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:10:47 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either
side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching proportions,
"potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a long-held
idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes
its place." And Britain's New Scientist observed that "an increasing number
of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . .
argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at
all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.
Why are you posting paragraphs from "Life - How did it get here? by
creation of evolution"? You lose any credibility by using that piece
of rubbish as a foundation for your arguments. At least stop before
you get to chapter three, lest people die of uncontrolled laughter.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
16 Aug 2003 09:24:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:00:56 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:10:47 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
wrote:
And Britain's New Scientist observed that "an increasing number
of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . .
argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at
all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.
OK, now provide the issue number that that quote was purportedly taken
from. I did a Google search and found it repeated several times... but
nowhere does the word "evolutionist" appear in the
www.newscientist.com search engine.
It *is* true that an increasing number (almost all, by now) of
scientists don't agree with strict Darwinism.
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
16 Aug 2003 11:48:07 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 02:24:59 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:00:56 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:10:47 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com>
wrote:
And Britain's New Scientist observed that "an increasing number
of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . .
argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at
all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.
OK, now provide the issue number that that quote was purportedly taken
from. I did a Google search and found it repeated several times... but
nowhere does the word "evolutionist" appear in the
www.newscientist.com search engine.
It *is* true that an increasing number (almost all, by now) of
scientists don't agree with strict Darwinism.
Hence the term neo-darwinism. That doesn't invalidate Darwin's
findings... simply that Darwin over-simplified in places.
Evolutionary-bioligists these days can bolster their work thru
advances in genetic discoveries, whilst Darwin could only guess at how
genes worked.
Anyway. I wasn't disputing the existence of schisms amongst scientists
with regards to the mechanisms and agents of evolutionary change. I
was questioning whether a publication like the New Scientist would use
words like "evolutionists".
Seems at least one correspondent may have done. Some 22 years ago.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
17 Aug 2003 05:23:21 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 05:48:07 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Anyway. I wasn't disputing the existence of schisms amongst scientists
with regards to the mechanisms and agents of evolutionary change. I
was questioning whether a publication like the New Scientist would use
words like "evolutionists".
Seems at least one correspondent may have done. Some 22 years ago.
I got 0 hits on their site for the word. :)
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could beunder-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ Francis Hitchings |
16 Aug 2003 08:02:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:00:56 +0100, Craig McDonald wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:10:47 -0400, "jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote:
Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of
evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were
established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from
either side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching
proportions, "potentially one of those times in science when, quite
suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary
evidence and a new one takes its place."
Scientists have a long history of forming camps proposing one theory over
another... until evidence appears which settles the matter. It is a
healthy process; much healthier than dogmatically following bronze-age
texts. Wouldn't you agree?
I've said it before. I'll say it again. Evolution isn't theory; it is
observable fact. The theories revolve around the *mechanisms* involved,
not whether it happened at all. In this, there are disagreements amongst
the neo-darwinists.
And Britain's New Scientist observed that "an increasing number of
scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . .
argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory
at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual
credentials.
OK, now provide the issue number that that quote was purportedly taken
from. I did a Google search and found it repeated several times... but
nowhere does the word "evolutionist" appear in the www.newscientist.com
search engine.
As soon as I saw the word, alarm bells started ringing. I've been an
on-off reader of New Scientist for many years now and the word
"evolutionist" is not one that I ever remember seeing. Y'see, the mistake
that creationists seem to repeatedly make is that non-creationists lend
any credibility to creationism whatsoever. Certainly not enough to come up
with a word like "evolutionists".
By the way, Ruse is a philosopher. Not a biologist.
http://www.fsu.edu/~philo/people/faculty/mruse.html
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
