"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:s5f5j1t6jn3a42oo6bkoifne9e40uu5ui5@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:47:41 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Cath Parks"
<adfgvadfh@horvtgme.com> in <1CyYe.678$NO2.316@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>
wrote:

"Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:3pfpdgF9u481U1@

=========================
You can't reason with a Jehovah's Witness CREATIONIST Matt. Javriol is
JABRIOL (aka Gants and Zod) from ARJ-W and crossposts these same arguments
to ARJ-W for years now.

Note: He is now nym-shifting almost daily to get past everyone's killfile
including using woman's names and identities. I just hate to see you people
waste your time going in circles with Jabriol - year after year. You'll
also notice he asks the SAME questions year after year. He adds only one or
two sentences, usually more questions, and awaits you all to waste your
valuable time trying to teach him something he is unwilling to even consider
a possibility

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:s5f5j1t6jn3a42oo6bkoifne9e40uu5ui5@4ax.com...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:47:41 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Cath Parks"
<adfgvadfh@horvtgme.com> in <1CyYe.678$NO2.316@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>
wrote:

"Seppo Pietikainen" <s.pietikainen@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:3pfpdgF9u481U1@

=========================
You can't reason with a Jehovah's Witness CREATIONIST Matt. Javriol is
JABRIOL (aka Gants and Zod) from ARJ-W and crossposts these same arguments
to ARJ-W for years now.

Note: He is now nym-shifting almost daily to get past everyone's killfile
including using woman's names and identities. I just hate to see you people
waste your time going in circles with Jabriol - year after year. You'll
also notice he asks the SAME questions year after year. He adds only one or
two sentences, usually more questions, and awaits you all to waste your
valuable time trying to teach him something he is unwilling to even consider
a possibility

--
CR.......
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods,
then you
will know why I dismiss yours." -= Stephen F. Roberts =-
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*

Seppo Pietikainen wrote:

That your error. I am not a cretionist.

Of course Carol will follow up and say that I am. But you wil belive
what you will belive.

Maybe, maybe not, Jabby. You're just a despicable cretin (sorry to insult all
you *bona fide* innocent cretins all around). Welcome back to my killfile (it is
a solitary cell four you).

Seppo P.

Ah yes it is normal to run an "unrefutable argument" I guess that rape
thread back up by peer review documents had a good effect on many. I
think that is good. It seperates real scientists from the wannabes.

Matt Silberstein wrote:

Then it should not be taught as fact.

The *theory* is not taught as fact. The *fact* is taught as fact. You
can't refute facts, they are observed. Either the observation and
account is correct or it is not.

Evolution as the origin of man has not been observed. It is speculated
based on what scientist call microevolution, 35 years ago, it was just
known as adaptabilty. Until this day one lifeform evolving into another
has not been observed

It is really very simply. We look up in the sky and we see this bright
object. We write down when we see it and at what angle. Those are
facts. If we write it down wrong or have a poor sextant or something
then our account is not accurate and so the facts are wrong. Otherwise
we have good facts. From these observations we infer the existence of
an object, the Sun or Moon. We also infer the existence of orbits. One
could, but no one does, consider the existence of the Sun and Moon and
respective orbits theories. That is, we propose an object to explain
the observation. But everyone accepts those as facts. The explanation
for the orbit, the theory of the orbit, proposes the existence of
gravity and momentum.

It is really exactly the same with evolution (and you have been told
this over and over and over). We observe populations of organisms. We
have millions and millions of such observations. From those
observations we infer the tree of life and we infer changes in
populations. IOW, just like we infer the existence and orbit of the
Moon from observing it and call that a fact we infer common descent
from millions of observations and call that a fact. The explanation
for the fact of evolution, the theory of evolution, proposes imperfect
reproduction and differential reproductive success. And we teach those
as the theory.

That is my argument against TOE. Millions of observation, and not one
population has moved over to be a different life form. Do you remember
my example on how HIV is fought?

Why does it
matter who wrote the version you paraphrased?

Just wanting to know if anyone recognized this pattern of thought. Many
beleive TOE to be unrefutable.

So far it appears to be so. It could be refuted if we observed any of
a large number of things we don't observe.

Such as?

If fossil evidence showed that organisms had not changed over time. If
the genetic evidence did not match morphology. If the fossil evidence
did not match the genetic and morphological. If observations of the
world said it was much too young. (For example, before Darwin wrote it
was believe that the Earth was only a few million years old. The
theory of evolution predicted otherwise and that prediction was
confirmed.)

The fossil evidence is not a good example to use. The Bulletin of
Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History commented: "Darwin's
theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from
fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very
important part of the general argument that is made in favor of
darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this
is not strictly true." The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was
embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he
predicted it would . . . the geologic record did not then and still
does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive
evolution." In fact now, after more than a century of collecting
fossils, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than
we had in Darwin's time," explained the Bulletin.

From a peered reviewed journal

Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between
Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pp. 22,
23, 25

It is unrefuted and may
well be close enough to correct to be unrefutable. But we humans of
limited knowledge and ability don't have direct access to truth. So
"refutable, currently unrefuted" is about as good as we can get. The
ToE, like the theories of Relativity and QM and such are all
"refutable, but currently unrefuted". "God did it" and "it was
designed by some unknown entity" are both unrefutable. That is, there
is no possible observation or set of observations that could show it
to be wrong. As such they are useless in science.

Interesting reply.
Is relativity shown as fact?
QM?

There are facts supporting the theories of Relativity and the theories
of Quantum. I don't know that anyone bothers to refer to the Fact of
Relativity because it does not really have the same kind of clear
distinguishable "fact" as evolution.

String theory?

String theory (theories) is still in formation. It may or may not pan
out.

It is being used to unify both relativity and QM. But I digress, we are
talking about evolution.