Sociology > Education > Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes
| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Western World" |
| Date: |
08 Mar 2006 06:15:55 PM |
| Object: |
Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/RINGSPECIES/
MORE OF MY SLANDER!
HOME PAGE
http://www.stopthereligiousright.org
TOC examples:
COMPARE COMMANDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION
http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/TENCOMMANDMENTS/
THE CLASSICAL TEMPLE ARCHITECTURE OF WASHINGTON, DC
http://community-2.webtv.net/westernmind/WASHINGTONDC/
THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY: THE CHURCH-STATE IRON FIST: 306-565
http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/RL
HOMOSEXUALITY UNDER FASCISM, STALINISM & JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY
http://community-2.webtv.net/westernmind/REICHOFFICE
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
08 Mar 2006 07:49:54 PM |
|
|
Western World wrote:
It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over the
significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the island of
Flores in Indonesia:
http://tinyurl.com/reo6y
As another example, scientists were happy with mere guesswork
concerning the evolution of venom in reptiles until somebody actually
decided to do their homework on the origin of reptile venom:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175935,00.html
http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/RINGSPECIES/
MORE OF MY SLANDER!
HOME PAGE
http://www.stopthereligiousright.org
TOC examples:
COMPARE COMMANDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION
http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/TENCOMMANDMENTS/
THE CLASSICAL TEMPLE ARCHITECTURE OF WASHINGTON, DC
http://community-2.webtv.net/westernmind/WASHINGTONDC/
THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY: THE CHURCH-STATE IRON FIST: 306-565
http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/RL
HOMOSEXUALITY UNDER FASCISM, STALINISM & JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY
http://community-2.webtv.net/westernmind/REICHOFFICE
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
08 Mar 2006 08:28:44 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Western World wrote:
It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over the
significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the island of
Flores in Indonesia:
No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case you
cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the nature
of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately settled by the
preponderence of supporting evidence.
A summary of the supporting evidence for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
08 Mar 2006 09:27:07 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Western World wrote:
It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over the
significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the island of
Flores in Indonesia:
No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case you
cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the nature
of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately settled by the
preponderence of supporting evidence.
What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit from
a distance of many zillions of light years away through telescopes as
they are with things like dark matter.
On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
A summary of the supporting evidence for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
08 Mar 2006 10:32:56 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1141874827.153071.139360@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Western World wrote:
It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion
debates. It is not science because science has strict rules. Science
requires the verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in
observation.
To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over
the significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the
island of Flores in Indonesia:
No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case
you cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the
nature of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately
settled by the preponderence of supporting evidence.
What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit from
a distance of many zillions of light years away through telescopes as
they are with things like dark matter.
Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new type
of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
There are still many issues in solid state physics that are not well
understood. Superconductivity for example. The behavior of some of the new
types of superconductors that have been discovered don't agree with the
theory. Any science has areas that are not so well understood, whether it
be biology, solid state physics, chemistry, astrophysics or anything else.
All are ruled by "evidence". A word that the anti-science cretinists are
terrified of.
Klazmon.
A summary of the supporting evidence for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
10 Mar 2006 11:25:57 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1141874827.153071.139360@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Western World wrote:
It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion
debates. It is not science because science has strict rules. Science
requires the verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in
observation.
To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over
the significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the
island of Flores in Indonesia:
No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case
you cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the
nature of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately
settled by the preponderence of supporting evidence.
What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
No, it's dead on. Collect evidence, interpret. Must be over your head...
It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit from
a distance of many zillions of light years away through telescopes as
they are with things like dark matter.
Actually, access to fossils is indeed resticted. You just can't walk in.
This does not mean they can't be studied by others, just that there's a
process to follow.
On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
Geez. Upgrading computers is NOT because of trouble "understanding
semionductor electrons" - this is a marketing decision.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
09 Mar 2006 11:40:43 AM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1141874827.153071.139360@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Western World wrote:
It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion
debates. It is not science because science has strict rules. Science
requires the verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in
observation.
To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over
the significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the
island of Flores in Indonesia:
No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case
you cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the
nature of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately
settled by the preponderence of supporting evidence.
What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit from
a distance of many zillions of light years away through telescopes as
they are with things like dark matter.
Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new type
of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles. I
wonder if the critics of the hobbit know that they've been silenced?
:^O
On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
There are still many issues in solid state physics that are not well
understood. Superconductivity for example. The behavior of some of the new
types of superconductors that have been discovered don't agree with the
theory. Any science has areas that are not so well understood, whether it
be biology, solid state physics, chemistry, astrophysics or anything else.
All are ruled by "evidence". A word that the anti-science cretinists are
terrified of.
Klazmon.
You are denying the suspiciously greater amount of guesswork involved
in so-called evolution theories when compared to other sciences.
Scientists completely missed the side of the barn with respect to their
initial guess as to how long ago reptile venom originated, for example,
a point that you have so far ignored. Indeed, who knows what guesswork
that is now being passed off as evolution theory that "scientists" will
ultimately have to trashcan after the next unexpected dig?
A summary of the supporting evidence for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
09 Mar 2006 05:05:56 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1141926043.409706.14610@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1141874827.153071.139360@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Western World wrote:
It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion
debates. It is not science because science has strict rules.
Science requires the verification of an hypotheses in an
experiment or in observation.
To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork
with respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled
over the significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on
the island of Flores in Indonesia:
No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of
a fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the
case you cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics
about the nature of dark matter. In science all such issues are
ultimately settled by the preponderence of supporting evidence.
What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit
from a distance of many zillions of light years away through
telescopes as they are with things like dark matter.
Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new
type of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty
much settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet
with an agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles. I
wonder if the critics of the hobbit know that they've been silenced?
:^O
How was it a strawman? It was a perfectly valid analogy demonstrating that
all sciences have areas that are not well understood. Since you raised the
case of semiconductors which is in the field of solid state physics, I gave
the example of certain newly disovered superconductors, which are not
explained by the current standard theory. Your complaint about the Nature
article being subscriber only (Bob already pointed out how you can see the
article without paying) was anticipated. It now allows me to point out that
you could well do with being a subsriber to a prestigious scientific
journal such as nature. You might actually learn something rather than
getting everything you know from your source Faux News LOL.
On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
There are still many issues in solid state physics that are not well
understood. Superconductivity for example. The behavior of some of the
new types of superconductors that have been discovered don't agree with
the theory. Any science has areas that are not so well understood,
whether it be biology, solid state physics, chemistry, astrophysics or
anything else. All are ruled by "evidence". A word that the
anti-science cretinists are terrified of.
Klazmon.
You are denying the suspiciously greater amount of guesswork involved
in so-called evolution theories when compared to other sciences.
It is fine in any science to form a hypothesis from guesswork, especially
if the guesswork is based on a sound knowledge of the subject. The key
factor is that any hypothesis only becomes accepted when it is backed up by
empirical evidence. The biological sciences are no different to any other
in this respect. I will repeat the link I gave listing very sound evidence
supporting the theory of common descent by evolution. If you think it is
wrong, address the actual evidence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Scientists completely missed the side of the barn with respect to their
initial guess as to how long ago reptile venom originated, for example,
a point that you have so far ignored. Indeed, who knows what guesswork
that is now being passed off as evolution theory that "scientists" will
ultimately have to trashcan after the next unexpected dig?
Physics completely missed the side of the barn when Lord Kelvin stated that
the Sun couldn't possibly be older than 30 million years. At the time,
Physicists didn't even know thermonuclear reactions existed. All science is
subject to revision. As I already said science is ruled by empirical
evidence. Newton's theory of dynamics and gravity were overturned by
special and general relativity. The later are just better descriptions of
nature than Newton's theory. Again, the biological sciences use exactly the
same methodology as the physical sciences.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
09 Mar 2006 01:55:28 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new type
of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles.
That is your incompetence. It took me 30 seconds to find a
nonsubscription short version.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-13_pf.html
I wonder if the critics of the hobbit know that they've been silenced?
They would likely be subscribers to Nature or have access through
their universities. But the version I was found was put up by Nature
themselves only a week after the prior article, so the cost of not
having a subscription is a week's delay in learning the news.
On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
There are still many issues in solid state physics that are not well
understood. Superconductivity for example. The behavior of some of the new
types of superconductors that have been discovered don't agree with the
theory. Any science has areas that are not so well understood, whether it
be biology, solid state physics, chemistry, astrophysics or anything else.
All are ruled by "evidence". A word that the anti-science cretinists are
terrified of.
You are denying the suspiciously greater amount of guesswork involved
in so-called evolution theories when compared to other sciences.
You don't seem to understand that science is fundamentally about
making hypotheses (which you would probably call "guesses") and then
testing them. Thus, all of science is what you call "guesswork".
Engineering sciences also involve hypotheses and testing. For every
advance you read about, there are thousands that don't pan out. But
there are hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists working on
improving computers, because there is money to be made doing so.
There are probably only a dozen people working with "hobbit" fossils,
and a few dozen more that have indirect access to their data, are
working on something not related, but might hit upon a relevant result
anyway.
Scientists completely missed the side of the barn with respect to their
initial guess as to how long ago reptile venom originated, for example,
a point that you have so far ignored.
No they did not "miss the side of the barn". They had correct dates
for the earliest fossils in two separate families that showed venom.
They had no evidence of a common ancestor, so they did not "guess"
that there was one. Now they have that evidence, so the date was
pushed back.
The guy writing the article may have been surprised by this, but I
suspect some number of scientists were not surprised at all. They
just couldn't go saying that there was a single development of venom
until there was evidence.
Indeed, who knows what guesswork
that is now being passed off as evolution theory that "scientists" will
ultimately have to trashcan after the next unexpected dig?
There is no "guesswork".
But scientists of all stripes like nothing better than the discard a
faulty hypothesis in favor of a better one. That is how science
works. That is its virtue and not its flaw.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
09 Mar 2006 08:13:39 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new type
of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles.
That is your incompetence. It took me 30 seconds to find a
nonsubscription short version.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-13_pf.html
It doesn't surprise me that you would be satisfied with "short version"
explanations of things. After all, who needs to read a complete
article when, in the true spirit of evolution "science," you can simply
get hold of a short version of an article and then use your imagination
to fill in the missing pieces? :^O
I wonder if the critics of the hobbit know that they've been silenced?
They would likely be subscribers to Nature or have access through
their universities. But the version I was found was put up by Nature
themselves only a week after the prior article, so the cost of not
having a subscription is a week's delay in learning the news.
Thank you for addressing my quention concerning the critics to your
satisfaction. :^(
On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
There are still many issues in solid state physics that are not well
understood. Superconductivity for example. The behavior of some of the new
types of superconductors that have been discovered don't agree with the
theory. Any science has areas that are not so well understood, whether it
be biology, solid state physics, chemistry, astrophysics or anything else.
All are ruled by "evidence". A word that the anti-science cretinists are
terrified of.
You are denying the suspiciously greater amount of guesswork involved
in so-called evolution theories when compared to other sciences.
You don't seem to understand that science is fundamentally about
making hypotheses (which you would probably call "guesses") and then
testing them. Thus, all of science is what you call "guesswork".
I wouldn't be surprised if hobbit critics merely got into testosterone
arguments with respect to trying to defend their oversimplified
generalizations about the hobbit.
Engineering sciences also involve hypotheses and testing. For every
advance you read about, there are thousands that don't pan out. But
there are hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists working on
improving computers, because there is money to be made doing so.
There are probably only a dozen people working with "hobbit" fossils,
and a few dozen more that have indirect access to their data, are
working on something not related, but might hit upon a relevant result
anyway.
Let's see, "hypotheses and testing...don't pan out...money to be
made...only a dozen...indirect access...something not
related...relevant result".
And your point?
Scientists completely missed the side of the barn with respect to their
initial guess as to how long ago reptile venom originated, for example,
a point that you have so far ignored.
No they did not "miss the side of the barn". They had correct dates
for the earliest fossils in two separate families that showed venom.
They had no evidence of a common ancestor, so they did not "guess"
that there was one. Now they have that evidence, so the date was
pushed back.
They had no evidence of a common reptile ancestor only because they
never took the time to roll up their sleeves and do some good old
scientific testing in the first place.
The guy writing the article may have been surprised by this, but I
suspect some number of scientists were not surprised at all. They
just couldn't go saying that there was a single development of venom
until there was evidence.
Again, there was probably nothing stopping scientists from doing some
basic experimentation before science text books that now have wrong
information in them concerning reptile "facts" were published.
Indeed, who knows what guesswork
that is now being passed off as evolution theory that "scientists" will
ultimately have to trashcan after the next unexpected dig?
There is no "guesswork".
Tell that to all the people who bought reptile books that now have
wrong "facts" in them.
But scientists of all stripes like nothing better than the discard a
faulty hypothesis in favor of a better one. That is how science
works. That is its virtue and not its flaw.
Evolution "scientists" would be undoubtedly be more careful with
preaching their so-called factual information if evolution science
books could be recalled just like defective vehicles.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
09 Mar 2006 11:37:45 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new type
of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles.
That is your incompetence. It took me 30 seconds to find a
nonsubscription short version.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-13_pf.html
It doesn't surprise me that you would be satisfied with "short version"
explanations of things. After all, who needs to read a complete
article when, in the true spirit of evolution "science," you can simply
get hold of a short version of an article and then use your imagination
to fill in the missing pieces? :^O
If I want to read the long version, I can pay for it, just like anyone
else. Intellectual property isn't free.
Scientists completely missed the side of the barn with respect to their
initial guess as to how long ago reptile venom originated, for example,
a point that you have so far ignored.
No they did not "miss the side of the barn". They had correct dates
for the earliest fossils in two separate families that showed venom.
They had no evidence of a common ancestor, so they did not "guess"
that there was one. Now they have that evidence, so the date was
pushed back.
They had no evidence of a common reptile ancestor only because they
never took the time to roll up their sleeves and do some good old
scientific testing in the first place.
The testing wasn't possible, dimwit.
The guy writing the article may have been surprised by this, but I
suspect some number of scientists were not surprised at all. They
just couldn't go saying that there was a single development of venom
until there was evidence.
Again, there was probably nothing stopping scientists from doing some
basic experimentation before science text books that now have wrong
information in them concerning reptile "facts" were published.
The conclusion that reptiles and snakes have a particular common
ancestor who was venomous is not the result of "basic
experimentation". It is the result of sequencing huge portions of the
snake and lizard genome, something that wasn't possible when most of
today's science books were written, and something that still takes
months or years in a specialized and very expensive laboratory (where
it is competing for funding with the much more lucrative human genome
studies).
Indeed, who knows what guesswork
that is now being passed off as evolution theory that "scientists" will
ultimately have to trashcan after the next unexpected dig?
There is no "guesswork".
Tell that to all the people who bought reptile books that now have
wrong "facts" in them.
I doubt if there are any "reptile books" that say that venom evolved
independently in lizards and snakes, BTW. Not exactly the sort of
thing that is important enough to put into a general textbook.
But your complaint could also be made about the numerous textbooks
with a periodic chart containing only 102 elements (or any other
number). Or it could be made about 200 years of Newtonian physics
textbooks before Einstein showed that Newton was incorrect. Indeed,
modern textbooks STILL teach Newton.
But scientists of all stripes like nothing better than the discard a
faulty hypothesis in favor of a better one. That is how science
works. That is its virtue and not its flaw.
Evolution "scientists" would be undoubtedly be more careful with
preaching their so-called factual information if evolution science
books could be recalled just like defective vehicles.
The nature of science is that it advances, and new facts are learned.
If you want a body of knowledge that can never change, go bury your
head in a Bible or the Koran, because only religion promises
stagnation.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
10 Mar 2006 03:11:06 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new type
of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles.
That is your incompetence. It took me 30 seconds to find a
nonsubscription short version.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-13_pf.html
It doesn't surprise me that you would be satisfied with "short version"
explanations of things. After all, who needs to read a complete
article when, in the true spirit of evolution "science," you can simply
get hold of a short version of an article and then use your imagination
to fill in the missing pieces? :^O
If I want to read the long version, I can pay for it, just like anyone
else. Intellectual property isn't free.
What a copout reply. :^(
Paying for the complete version doesn't have anything to do with the
point that you are ignoring.
How quickly you forget that the reason that you probably mentioned the
short version in the first place because YOU are happy to "fill in"
omitted information with your imagination, a bad habit that evolution
minded people are known to demonstrate with respect to interpreting the
archaeological record.
Scientists completely missed the side of the barn with respect to their
initial guess as to how long ago reptile venom originated, for example,
a point that you have so far ignored.
No they did not "miss the side of the barn". They had correct dates
for the earliest fossils in two separate families that showed venom.
They had no evidence of a common ancestor, so they did not "guess"
that there was one. Now they have that evidence, so the date was
pushed back.
They had no evidence of a common reptile ancestor only because they
never took the time to roll up their sleeves and do some good old
scientific testing in the first place.
The testing wasn't possible, dimwit.
Coming to "scientific" conclusions without testing to substantiate such
conclusions is guesswork, plain and simple. Evolution scientists
should at least make it clear that they are interpolating their
conclusions and the possible consequences of doing so.
The guy writing the article may have been surprised by this, but I
suspect some number of scientists were not surprised at all. They
just couldn't go saying that there was a single development of venom
until there was evidence.
Again, there was probably nothing stopping scientists from doing some
basic experimentation before science text books that now have wrong
information in them concerning reptile "facts" were published.
The conclusion that reptiles and snakes have a particular common
ancestor who was venomous is not the result of "basic
experimentation". It is the result of sequencing huge portions of the
snake and lizard genome, something that wasn't possible when most of
today's science books were written, and something that still takes
months or years in a specialized and very expensive laboratory (where
it is competing for funding with the much more lucrative human genome
studies).
You're making things up out of thin air. Indeed, with a mentality like
yours, have you considered becoming an evolution scientist when you
grow up?
Indeed, who knows what guesswork
that is now being passed off as evolution theory that "scientists" will
ultimately have to trashcan after the next unexpected dig?
There is no "guesswork".
Tell that to all the people who bought reptile books that now have
wrong "facts" in them.
I doubt if there are any "reptile books" that say that venom evolved
independently in lizards and snakes, BTW. Not exactly the sort of
thing that is important enough to put into a general textbook.
The question is, how long does it take before you start accepting one
of your armchair ideas as reality?
But your complaint could also be made about the numerous textbooks
with a periodic chart containing only 102 elements (or any other
number).
If I remember correctly, I was taught that the period chart is not
absolute and just shows the known elements.
Or it could be made about 200 years of Newtonian physics
textbooks before Einstein showed that Newton was incorrect. Indeed,
modern textbooks STILL teach Newton.
Unlike today's testosterone arguing evolutionists, I believe that
Newton would have been quite receptive to critiques about his ideas.
But scientists of all stripes like nothing better than the discard a
faulty hypothesis in favor of a better one. That is how science
works. That is its virtue and not its flaw.
Evolution "scientists" would be undoubtedly be more careful with
preaching their so-called factual information if evolution science
books could be recalled just like defective vehicles.
The nature of science is that it advances, and new facts are learned.
If you want a body of knowledge that can never change, go bury your
head in a Bible or the Koran, because only religion promises
stagnation.
The problem is that evolutionists have historically represented their
guesses as facts as evidenced by their initial thinking about reptile
venom.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
10 Mar 2006 04:15:25 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new type
of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles.
That is your incompetence. It took me 30 seconds to find a
nonsubscription short version.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-13_pf.html
It doesn't surprise me that you would be satisfied with "short version"
explanations of things. After all, who needs to read a complete
article when, in the true spirit of evolution "science," you can simply
get hold of a short version of an article and then use your imagination
to fill in the missing pieces? :^O
If I want to read the long version, I can pay for it, just like anyone
else. Intellectual property isn't free.
What a copout reply. :^(
Tough. It is factual.
Paying for the complete version doesn't have anything to do with the
point that you are ignoring.
You seem to think that there is some significance in my citing a short
article rather than a long one. There is none. I found the short
article and it sufficed for my needs. If I had needed more
information, I would have obtained the long article.
How quickly you forget that the reason that you probably mentioned the
short version in the first place because YOU are happy to "fill in"
omitted information with your imagination,
Your mind reading skills are non-existent.
The sequence of events is that you posted a Faux News blog article as
evidence about the current state of research on the "hobbit". After a
couple of exchanges, someone else cited a Nature article which showed
that the questions raised had largely been settled. You complained
that it was subscription only. I provided a nonsubscription version.
It provided enough information that it was clear that it was reporting
on the same event as the subscription article, and being a sane
person, I figure that anyone who wants the added information that
might be in the subscription article will pay for it.
I don't have any particular need for that information, so I neither
paid for it, or "filled it in" with my imagination.
They had no evidence of a common reptile ancestor only because they
never took the time to roll up their sleeves and do some good old
scientific testing in the first place.
The testing wasn't possible, dimwit.
Coming to "scientific" conclusions without testing to substantiate such
conclusions is guesswork, plain and simple.
Wrong.
Evolution scientists
should at least make it clear that they are interpolating their
conclusions and the possible consequences of doing so.
It is a basic concept of science that it "interpolates its
conclusions" and then seeks to find new ways to test those
conclusions. A scientific "conclusion" is never more than a starting
point for more tests, some of which will lead to changes in the
original conclusion as we learn more.
The original conclusion was based on different "tests", and was the
best possible given the information available. Science never claims
to be more than based on the information available.
Again, there was probably nothing stopping scientists from doing some
basic experimentation before science text books that now have wrong
information in them concerning reptile "facts" were published.
The conclusion that reptiles and snakes have a particular common
ancestor who was venomous is not the result of "basic
experimentation". It is the result of sequencing huge portions of the
snake and lizard genome, something that wasn't possible when most of
today's science books were written, and something that still takes
months or years in a specialized and very expensive laboratory (where
it is competing for funding with the much more lucrative human genome
studies).
You're making things up out of thin air.
Nope.
Indeed, with a mentality like
yours, have you considered becoming an evolution scientist when you
grow up?
I'm long passed that stage and am closer to retirement age.
I doubt if there are any "reptile books" that say that venom evolved
independently in lizards and snakes, BTW. Not exactly the sort of
thing that is important enough to put into a general textbook.
The question is, how long does it take before you start accepting one
of your armchair ideas as reality?
It is the only reality I know, actually. Maybe in your dimension
creatures like you perceive a different reality. But us human beings
are limited to our five senses, and everything else is added by our
brains.
But your complaint could also be made about the numerous textbooks
with a periodic chart containing only 102 elements (or any other
number).
If I remember correctly, I was taught that the period chart is not
absolute and just shows the known elements.
So too, the detailed timeline of human and animal evolution. They
only show what is known, not what is not known. No common venomous
ancestor of snakes and lizards had been found, so one was not put on
the charts. Therefore the two lineages appeared to have emerged
separately at some later time. Now we have evidence of a missing
common ancestor, so it has added a new "element" to the chart. There
is nothing more special about "X and Y are the earliest known venomous
animals and we have no evidence that they shared a common ancestor"
than there is about "Z is the highest atomic numbered element that we
have yet found, and we have no evidence of a higher numbered element".
Or it could be made about 200 years of Newtonian physics
textbooks before Einstein showed that Newton was incorrect. Indeed,
modern textbooks STILL teach Newton.
Unlike today's testosterone arguing evolutionists, I believe that
Newton would have been quite receptive to critiques about his ideas.
"Evolutionists" are, but you have to have a smidgen of understanding
of the existing theory and knowledge before you try it, or you will
look like a fool.
The nature of science is that it advances, and new facts are learned.
If you want a body of knowledge that can never change, go bury your
head in a Bible or the Koran, because only religion promises
stagnation.
The problem is that evolutionists have historically represented their
guesses as facts as evidenced by their initial thinking about reptile
venom.
You haven't a clue how they represent their "guesses" since you don't
read scientific papers because they are available by subscription
only.
You rely on Faux News blogs and use your imagination to faultily fill
in the gaps between your belief system and reality.
Thus showing that you engage in what you erroneously accuse
"evolutionists" of doing, making you a hypocrite.
Of course we already knew that.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
10 Mar 2006 06:19:56 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new type
of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles.
That is your incompetence. It took me 30 seconds to find a
nonsubscription short version.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-13_pf.html
It doesn't surprise me that you would be satisfied with "short version"
explanations of things. After all, who needs to read a complete
article when, in the true spirit of evolution "science," you can simply
get hold of a short version of an article and then use your imagination
to fill in the missing pieces? :^O
If I want to read the long version, I can pay for it, just like anyone
else. Intellectual property isn't free.
What a copout reply. :^(
Tough. It is factual.
Paying for the complete version doesn't have anything to do with the
point that you are ignoring.
You seem to think that there is some significance in my citing a short
article rather than a long one. There is none. I found the short
article and it sufficed for my needs. If I had needed more
information, I would have obtained the long article.
You unwittingly projected your satisfaction with the shorter article
onto me. But it's not up to you and your evolutionist friends to to
decide what anybody else will be satisfied with.
How quickly you forget that the reason that you probably mentioned the
short version in the first place because YOU are happy to "fill in"
omitted information with your imagination,
Your mind reading skills are non-existent.
I'll admit that there must first be something there for me to read. :^O
The sequence of events is that you posted a Faux News blog article as
evidence about the current state of research on the "hobbit". After a
couple of exchanges, someone else cited a Nature article which showed
that the questions raised had largely been settled. You complained
that it was subscription only. I provided a nonsubscription version.
It provided enough information that it was clear that it was reporting
?????????????????????????
I'm not your clone. :^(
Who are YOU to decide for anybody else what is enough information?
on the same event as the subscription article, and being a sane
person, I figure that anyone who wants the added information that
might be in the subscription article will pay for it.
You are trying to sweep under the carpet my concern about the way that
you habitually decide things for other people.
I don't have any particular need for that information, so I neither
paid for it, or "filled it in" with my imagination.
Arguably true. However, how can anybody know for sure that they don't
have any need for unknown information until after they know more about
that information?
Never mind. I'm tired of your spins.
They had no evidence of a common reptile ancestor only because they
never took the time to roll up their sleeves and do some good old
scientific testing in the first place.
The testing wasn't possible, dimwit.
Coming to "scientific" conclusions without testing to substantiate such
conclusions is guesswork, plain and simple.
Wrong.
Wrong, why? Just because you say so? There's that testosterone again.
Evolution scientists
should at least make it clear that they are interpolating their
conclusions and the possible consequences of doing so.
It is a basic concept of science that it "interpolates its
conclusions" and then seeks to find new ways to test those
conclusions. A scientific "conclusion" is never more than a starting
point for more tests, some of which will lead to changes in the
original conclusion as we learn more.
As I said, evolution scientists should at least make it clear that
their interpolations could be wrong as opposed to packaging them as
scientific fact to mudsling at the creationists. At least creationists
will admit that they are basing their beliefs in Bible information on
faith.
The original conclusion was based on different "tests", and was the
best possible given the information available. Science never claims
to be more than based on the information available.
As I said, evolution scientists should at least make it clear that
their interpolations could be wrong as opposed to packaging their
assertions as scientific fact to have something to mudsling at the
creationists.
Again, there was probably nothing stopping scientists from doing some
basic experimentation before science text books that now have wrong
information in them concerning reptile "facts" were published.
The conclusion that reptiles and snakes have a particular common
ancestor who was venomous is not the result of "basic
experimentation". It is the result of sequencing huge portions of the
snake and lizard genome, something that wasn't possible when most of
today's science books were written, and something that still takes
months or years in a specialized and very expensive laboratory (where
it is competing for funding with the much more lucrative human genome
studies).
You're making things up out of thin air.
Nope.
Nope, what? I volunteered references to a "hobbit human" and reptile
venom. But what do I get from you other than a stubborn,
unsubstantiated, worthless "nope"?
Indeed, with a mentality like
yours, have you considered becoming an evolution scientist when you
grow up?
I'm long passed that stage and am closer to retirement age.
I doubt if there are any "reptile books" that say that venom evolved
independently in lizards and snakes, BTW. Not exactly the sort of
thing that is important enough to put into a general textbook.
The question is, how long does it take before you start accepting one
of your armchair ideas as reality?
It is the only reality I know, actually. Maybe in your dimension
creatures like you perceive a different reality. But us human beings
are limited to our five senses, and everything else is added by our
brains.
Has your brain ever made a mistake?
But your complaint could also be made about the numerous textbooks
with a periodic chart containing only 102 elements (or any other
number).
If I remember correctly, I was taught that the period chart is not
absolute and just shows the known elements.
So too, the detailed timeline of human and animal evolution.
There you go again! :^(
First you unthinkingly impose on me your standards with respect to
expecting me to be satisfied with the shortened version of the hobbit
article. Now you are unwittingly imposing on me your standards for
what YOU regard as sufficient details with respect to the timeline of
human and animal evolution.
They
only show what is known, not what is not known. No common venomous
ancestor of snakes and lizards had been found, so one was not put on
the charts.
They jumped from being aware of 2 lizards to being aware of possibly
more than 1500 of them:
"Scientists have known of just two living venomous lizards: the Gila
monster and the Mexican beaded lizard. Turns out there may be more than
1,500 of them." --Fox News 11/17/05.
I won't deny that their new findings could be based on new laboratory
technologies that were previously unavailable; the article didn't say.
However, I also won't disregard that some scientists questioned
assertions made by other scientists and then rolled up their sleeves to
do some actual testing to satisfy their own curiosity.
Therefore the two lineages appeared to have emerged
separately at some later time. Now we have evidence of a missing
common ancestor, so it has added a new "element" to the chart. There
is nothing more special about "X and Y are the earliest known venomous
animals and we have no evidence that they shared a common ancestor"
than there is about "Z is the highest atomic numbered element that we
have yet found, and we have no evidence of a higher numbered element".
Again, the suspicious leap from knowing 2 venemous reptiles to becoming
aware of possibly 1500 or more suggests that evolution scientists have
simple been too lazy to get out of their armchairs to do some actual
testing.
Or it could be made about 200 years of Newtonian physics
textbooks before Einstein showed that Newton was incorrect. Indeed,
modern textbooks STILL teach Newton.
Unlike today's testosterone arguing evolutionists, I believe that
Newton would have been quite receptive to critiques about his ideas.
"Evolutionists" are, but you have to have a smidgen of understanding
of the existing theory and knowledge before you try it, or you will
look like a fool.
I believe that ad hominem remarks have been popular with evolutionists
from the time of the Scopes trial. However, questioning peoples' IQ
has become a tired, copout way for evolutionist to sidestep
increasingly sophisticated questions concerning evolution, Michael
Behe's concerns about irreducible complexity for example.
The nature of science is that it advances, and new facts are learned.
If you want a body of knowledge that can never change, go bury your
head in a Bible or the Koran, because only religion promises
stagnation.
The problem is that evolutionists have historically represented their
guesses as facts as evidenced by their initial thinking about reptile
venom.
You haven't a clue how they represent their "guesses" since you don't
read scientific papers because they are available by subscription
only.
I was astonished to watch a Discovery Channel(?) documentary where
scientists essentially quarreled with each other with respect to trying
to defend their uncomplementary generalizations about the hobbit.
You rely on Faux News blogs and use your imagination to faultily fill
in the gaps between your belief system and reality.
Better a Fox News blog then one of your unsubstantiated "nopes".
Thus showing that you engage in what you erroneously accuse
"evolutionists" of doing, making you a hypocrite.
Of course we already knew that.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
10 Mar 2006 10:36:08 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Tough. It is factual.
Paying for the complete version doesn't have anything to do with the
point that you are ignoring.
You seem to think that there is some significance in my citing a short
article rather than a long one. There is none. I found the short
article and it sufficed for my needs. If I had needed more
information, I would have obtained the long article.
You unwittingly projected your satisfaction with the shorter article
onto me. But it's not up to you and your evolutionist friends to to
decide what anybody else will be satisfied with.
Scientists do not give a damn about what you will be satisfied with.
You are utterly irrelevant and without consequence to them.
Who are YOU to decide for anybody else what is enough information?
I don't. But if you want more information than I provided, go get
your PhD and set up your own research lab and figure it out for
yourself. No one else cares what you want.
on the same event as the subscription article, and being a sane
person, I figure that anyone who wants the added information that
might be in the subscription article will pay for it.
You are trying to sweep under the carpet my concern about the way that
you habitually decide things for other people.
I decide nothing for you. I decide what I will do. If you aren't
satisfied, see above.
They had no evidence of a common reptile ancestor only because they
never took the time to roll up their sleeves and do some good old
scientific testing in the first place.
The testing wasn't possible, dimwit.
Coming to "scientific" conclusions without testing to substantiate such
conclusions is guesswork, plain and simple.
Wrong.
Wrong, why? Just because you say so?
No. Because peer-reviewed science says so. And peer-reviewed science
judges itself, and couldn't care less about the opinions of ignorant
idiots like yourself.
It is a basic concept of science that it "interpolates its
conclusions" and then seeks to find new ways to test those
conclusions. A scientific "conclusion" is never more than a starting
point for more tests, some of which will lead to changes in the
original conclusion as we learn more.
As I said, evolution scientists should at least make it clear that
their interpolations could be wrong
They do. It is part of the definition of science.
If that isn't good enough for you, tough.
Again, there was probably nothing stopping scientists from doing some
basic experimentation before science text books that now have wrong
information in them concerning reptile "facts" were published.
The conclusion that reptiles and snakes have a particular common
ancestor who was venomous is not the result of "basic
experimentation". It is the result of sequencing huge portions of the
snake and lizard genome, something that wasn't possible when most of
today's science books were written, and something that still takes
months or years in a specialized and very expensive laboratory (where
it is competing for funding with the much more lucrative human genome
studies).
You're making things up out of thin air.
Nope.
Nope, what? I volunteered references to a "hobbit human" and reptile
venom.
And you made incorrect and ignorant statements about science with
respect to each, and I provides cites that corrected you.
But what do I get from you other than a stubborn,
unsubstantiated, worthless "nope"?
My "nope" was quite substantiated, and is worth more than all the
verbiage you have ever posted on Usenet, since it is correct, whereas
I question that you have ever been.
I doubt if there are any "reptile books" that say that venom evolved
independently in lizards and snakes, BTW. Not exactly the sort of
thing that is important enough to put into a general textbook.
The question is, how long does it take before you start accepting one
of your armchair ideas as reality?
It is the only reality I know, actually. Maybe in your dimension
creatures like you perceive a different reality. But us human beings
are limited to our five senses, and everything else is added by our
brains.
Has your brain ever made a mistake?
Yes. I'm still alive, so the mistakes were not fatal.
But your complaint could also be made about the numerous textbooks
with a periodic chart containing only 102 elements (or any other
number).
If I remember correctly, I was taught that the period chart is not
absolute and just shows the known elements.
So too, the detailed timeline of human and animal evolution.
There you go again! :^(
First you unthinkingly impose on me your standards with respect to
expecting me to be satisfied with the shortened version of the hobbit
article. Now you are unwittingly imposing on me your standards for
what YOU regard as sufficient details with respect to the timeline of
human and animal evolution.
Science doesn't give a flying ***** whether you are satisfied with the
timeline of evolution or with the periodic table. No one cares what
you think, except you.
Therefore the two lineages appeared to have emerged
separately at some later time. Now we have evidence of a missing
common ancestor, so it has added a new "element" to the chart. There
is nothing more special about "X and Y are the earliest known venomous
animals and we have no evidence that they shared a common ancestor"
than there is about "Z is the highest atomic numbered element that we
have yet found, and we have no evidence of a higher numbered element".
Again, the suspicious leap from knowing 2 venemous reptiles to becoming
aware of possibly 1500 or more suggests that evolution scientists have
simple been too lazy to get out of their armchairs to do some actual
testing.
Or maybe they had other priorities. Or maybe they lacked the funding.
Or it could be made about 200 years of Newtonian physics
textbooks before Einstein showed that Newton was incorrect. Indeed,
modern textbooks STILL teach Newton.
Unlike today's testosterone arguing evolutionists, I believe that
Newton would have been quite receptive to critiques about his ideas.
"Evolutionists" are, but you have to have a smidgen of understanding
of the existing theory and knowledge before you try it, or you will
look like a fool.
I believe that ad hominem remarks have been popular with evolutionists
from the time of the Scopes trial. However, questioning peoples' IQ
has become a tired, copout way for evolutionist to sidestep
increasingly sophisticated questions concerning evolution, Michael
Behe's concerns about irreducible complexity for example.
Behe is a fool and had to admit same in front of a court. His
"concerns" have nothing to do with reality.
I was astonished to watch a Discovery Channel(?) documentary where
scientists essentially quarreled with each other with respect to trying
to defend their uncomplementary generalizations about the hobbit.
Science debates ideas. This is good, though you apparently find it
astonishing.
Whether you think that the generalizations were "uncomplementary" is
utterly unimportant.
You rely on Faux News blogs and use your imagination to faultily fill
in the gaps between your belief system and reality.
Better a Fox News blog then one of your unsubstantiated "nopes".
Wrong. Misinformation is worse than no information at all, especially
in the hands of an idiot.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
10 Mar 2006 12:53:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 20:13:39 -0600, fred wrote
(in article <1141956819.887954.74580@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>):
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Not evolution scientists. Paleoathropologist's classification of a new
type
of fossil. Your agenda is showing. In fact new evidence has pretty much
settled the "Flores man" case. The fact that some kook on usenet with an
agenda doesn't like it is of no interest to scientists:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
Nice sidestep to your strawman concerning dark matter. The article is
accessable only by subscription and I cannot find similar articles.
That is your incompetence. It took me 30 seconds to find a
nonsubscription short version.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/pf/050228-13_pf.html
It doesn't surprise me that you would be satisfied with "short version"
explanations of things. After all, who needs to read a complete
article when, in the true spirit of evolution "science," you can simply
get hold of a short version of an article and then use your imagination
to fill in the missing pieces? :^O
Most of us are familiar with Bob's credentials; what are yours?
(Those that can be validated, of course.)
Your main "credential" appears to be that - in every message - your alligator
mouth overpowers your hummingbird *****.
Oops! Sorry about that. I forgot that your and Richard "Pull 'em, Rufus"
Cheney share similar mind styles.
Of course, his 60 IQ points higher than yours does give your leader a reason
to spit down on you as a wasted porker.
But, of course, your "life" [snicker] can only be gauged by those to whom you
sell out. I understand that there are daily auctions.
Anyone who wonders what there is different between a "brain" and a "mind"
can, definitely, use you as an explanation illustrated.
You know you would be much happier dead than in your present "unDead state"
and Rowdy Roddy would applaud you while wearing his sunglasses.
You must be "they" because you sure ain't "us".
You've probably already figured out that, when you try to mate with human
women, their laughter and hilarity at you is a direct response to your
"unusual" (to be nice about it) desires.
And that your loyalty to Attorney General John "nekkid ladies with tits"
Ashcroft and to Torturer General Alberto " you use Vise-gripsŪ on their nuts"
Gonzales is your true passion, especially if you get to see what you declare
as "the fun parts".
I realize that Bush and Cheney aren't exactly what one would call "men" but
then you're pretty yellow yourself, FredPhelpsiePoo.
Do you hate Sweden because of the blondes who spit on you or the brunettes
who spit on you?
Do you hate America because America disbarred you - along with your state BAR
- because you're an unethical porker who should be used to solve the famine
in Ireland?
++ gray
I wonder if the critics of the hobbit know that they've been silenced?
They would likely be subscribers to Nature or have access through
their universities. But the version I was found was put up by Nature
themselves only a week after the prior article, so the cost of not
having a subscription is a week's delay in learning the news.
Thank you for addressing my quention concerning the critics to your
satisfaction. :^(
On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
There are still many issues in solid state physics that are not well
understood. Superconductivity for example. The behavior of some of the new
types of superconductors that have been discovered don't agree with the
theory. Any science has areas that are not so well understood, whether it
be biology, solid state physics, chemistry, astrophysics or anything else.
All are ruled by "evidence". A word that the anti-science cretinists are
terrified of.
You are denying the suspiciously greater amount of guesswork involved
in so-called evolution theories when compared to other sciences.
You don't seem to understand that science is fundamentally about
making hypotheses (which you would probably call "guesses") and then
testing them. Thus, all of science is what you call "guesswork".
I wouldn't be surprised if hobbit critics merely got into testosterone
arguments with respect to trying to defend their oversimplified
generalizations about the hobbit.
Engineering sciences also involve hypotheses and testing. For every
advance you read about, there are thousands that don't pan out. But
there are hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists working on
improving computers, because there is money to be made doing so.
There are probably only a dozen people working with "hobbit" fossils,
and a few dozen more that have indirect access to their data, are
working on something not related, but might hit upon a relevant result
anyway.
Let's see, "hypotheses and testing...don't pan out...money to be
made...only a dozen...indirect access...something not
related...relevant result".
And your point?
Scientists completely missed the side of the barn with respect to their
initial guess as to how long ago reptile venom originated, for example,
a point that you have so far ignored.
No they did not "miss the side of the barn". They had correct dates
for the earliest fossils in two separate families that showed venom.
They had no evidence of a common ancestor, so they did not "guess"
that there was one. Now they have that evidence, so the date was
pushed back.
They had no evidence of a common reptile ancestor only because they
never took the time to roll up their sleeves and do some good old
scientific testing in the first place.
The guy writing the article may have been surprised by this, but I
suspect some number of scientists were not surprised at all. They
just couldn't go saying that there was a single development of venom
until there was evidence.
Again, there was probably nothing stopping scientists from doing some
basic experimentation before science text books that now have wrong
information in them concerning reptile "facts" were published.
Indeed, who knows what guesswork
that is now being passed off as evolution theory that "scientists" will
ultimately have to trashcan after the next unexpected dig?
There is no "guesswork".
Tell that to all the people who bought reptile books that now have
wrong "facts" in them.
But scientists of all stripes like nothing better than the discard a
faulty hypothesis in favor of a better one. That is how science
works. That is its virtue and not its flaw.
Evolution "scientists" would be undoubtedly be more careful with
preaching their so-called factual information if evolution science
books could be recalled just like defective vehicles.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
09 Mar 2006 03:17:40 PM |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2006 09:40:43 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
You are denying the suspiciously greater amount of guesswork involved
in so-called evolution theories when compared to other sciences.
You still don't seem to get it, Freddie
Science using a "theory" can change anytime evidence
(credible evidence) is acquired.
Not so in religious doctrine and dogma.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
09 Mar 2006 01:33:05 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Western World wrote:
It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over the
significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the island of
Flores in Indonesia:
No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case you
cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the nature
of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately settled by the
preponderence of supporting evidence.
What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit from
a distance of many zillions of light years away through telescopes as
they are with things like dark matter.
No. They are forced to study it from thousands of miles away through
limited access to the very few fossils that have been found of the
"hobbit". There are more telescopes than there are fossils, and there
is a lot more dark matter, too.
On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences are kicking
butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
lifestyles. We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
Upgrading computers makes lots of money for those who do the
upgrading, and the effort is not limited to restricted access to
silicon, which after all is one of the more common elements on the
planet. Large numbers of scientists and engineers work on making such
advances. By contrast, fusion research, which stands to also make a
lot of money for whoever can make practical cheap energy has to make
use of very limited and expensive facilities, and that research,
performed by a small number of scientists, advances at a snails pace.
Research on the evolutionary role of the "hobbit" is based on even
more limited access, and the fact that no one will make much money
over resolving the role of the hobbit, as well as the fact that most
researchers are studying things other than the "hobbit".
In any event, the speed with which a field advances has nothing to do
with the correctness of the research that has been done.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
09 Mar 2006 03:15:27 PM |
|
|
On 8 Mar 2006 19:27:07 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case you
cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the nature
of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately settled by the
preponderence of supporting evidence.
It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit from
a distance of many zillions of light years away through telescopes as
they are with things like dark matter.
Einstein never saw an atom either, Freddie
But he could explain it mathmatically.
Fundamentalist nonsense relating to "genesis" simply
cannot be considered more than a myth.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
09 Mar 2006 03:57:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 21:27:07 -0600, fred wrote
(in article <1141874827.153071.139360@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in news:1141868994.307753.293040
@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
Western World wrote:
It is for philosophical discussions and comparative religion debates. It
is not science because science has strict rules. Science requires the
verification of an hypotheses in an experiment or in observation.
To the contrary, evolution has more than its share of guesswork with
respect to other sciences. For example, scientists quarreled over the
significance of the "hobbit," human(?) remains found on the island of
Flores in Indonesia:
No more so than any other science. A disagreemnt about the nature of a
fossil in paleoanthropology (evolution is only incidental to the case you
cite), is no different to a disagreement in astrophysics about the nature
of dark matter. In science all such issues are ultimately settled by the
preponderence of supporting evidence.
What a sorry, copout reply. :^(
It's not like evolution scientists were forced to study the hobbit from
a distance of many zillions of light years away through telescopes as
they are with things like dark matter.
On the other hand, consider that the engineering sciences
When did Engineering become a "science".
I betcha my Dad (formerly a laboratory Chief at WES/ERDC - "Mobility and
Environmental Systems) is looking down - well, if there's an afterlife - and
breaking up laughing over "engineering sciences".
There are some engineers - usually not very good ones - who love the idea of
being labeled as a "scientist". To quote Dad, "Scientists talk, engineers
do". (And, yes, ASTM, ASCE, FHA and NAS + ones I don't know).
are kicking
butt on a daily basis with respect to constantly improving our
lifestyles.
Then they're working their trade.
We wouldn't be constantly upgrading our computers, for
example, if scientists were having as much trouble with understanding
semionductor electrons as evolutionists are having difficulties in
trying to agree among themselves about the hobbit.
Not a valid comparison. Semiconductors were /invented/ while our biological
background has to be /discovered/.
Engineers keep going forward while many scientists are looking back.
Both appear to be valid areas if we are to increase our knowledge.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------
They laughed at Columbus,
they laughed at Fulton,
they laughed at the Wright brothers.
But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
- Carl Sagan
A summary of the supporting evidence for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Klazmon
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
09 Mar 2006 03:16:11 PM |
|
|
So you think that genetic testing and all of medicine is of no help at
all to humanity.
Interesting - have fun getting better with creationist doctors - if you
can find one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Intelligent design isn't a scientific idea for science classes |
09 Mar 2006 04:29:44 PM |
|
|
In article <1141938971.144826.176960@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> "Kate" <Kate@twoangryliberals.com> writes:
So you think that genetic testing and all of medicine is of no help at
all to humanity.
Interesting - have fun getting better with creationist doctors - if you
can find one.
There of course have been creationist doctors -- for the last 4,000-plus years,
in fact.
I'd say that provides an adequate baseline for comparisons.
-- cary
.
|
|
| | | | | |
