|
|
 | | From: | Jabriol at excite.com | | Subject: | Re: tobsRe: Big Bang Confirmed - Again | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 14:29:42 -0800 |
|
|
 |
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, LP, BLT, ETC. wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:1106070501.561900.77200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Gary Bohn wrote:
> >> jabriol@fastmail.fm wrote in
> >>> >
> >> > yes, yes.. please tell us how evolution pass the Scientific
Method.
> >> > every time I ask this question.. the thread dies..
> >> >
> >>
> >> You are not worth answering.
> >>
> >
> > translation: " I do not know the answer, and therefore my reply
will be
> > an ad-hom attack"
>
> So Jabriol, what part of the Scientific Method do you think evolution
does
> not "pass"?
>
> Or do we need to explain Scientific Method to you all over again?
Let see first if I got SM correct:
1. Observe what happens.
2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true
That being said, let me know if it is correct, note the following
mentioned by a a peer review journal:
New Scientist: "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."-June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Could it be, that they conclude, that the theory of evolution does not
pass SM?
depending on your defintion of evolution; Evolution claims that life
came into existence by chance, then by chance changed into new kinds,
all the way from amoebas to men.
As far as we know, life comes only from life. This can be proven by
SM... As far as we know, organisms reproduce after their kind, no
variations going beyond the family kind. These are facts observed and
also confirmed by experiments. The spontaneous generation of life has
not been observed; nor has it been accomplished by experiments. One
kind has not been observed changing into another kind; nor can it be
made to happen in experiments. Evolution cannot be verified by the
scientific method. Not even by the intervention of human intelligence
can life be created or changed into a different kind. What is a Kind
you may ask? Genus prehaps?
what make a wolf, and what makes a dog? Geneticly they are the same
but behaviour wise, they are different, therefore some scientist may
have different opinion on defintion of a "kind", Hell.. they can cant
come to an agreement to the defintion of Species.
Many fossils within the family kinds have been found, but none showing
the millions of changes that would have had to take place to turn one
kind into another. Faith alone supports the evolutionist's belief in
spontaneous generation of life. Also required: faith in fossils that he
has never found and faith in mutations that he has never seen.
Evolution is a philosophy, but it masquerades as a science. It puts
faith in "chance" as creator of the millions of complicated,
purposeful designs in living things.
|
|
| | From: | Al Klein | | Subject: | Re: tobsRe: Big Bang Confirmed - Again | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:57:20 GMT |
|
|
| On 23 Jan 2005 14:29:42 -0800, Jabriol@excite.com said in alt.atheism:
>New Scientist: "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."-June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Very few people still hold with classical Darwinism.
>Could it be, that they conclude, that the theory of evolution does not
>pass SM?
Which theory? Darwin's? Maybe.
Which has what to do with the fact of evolution? (And evolution has
been observed - every day - so it *IS* a fact.)
>depending on your defintion of evolution; Evolution claims that life
>came into existence by chance
Evolution has nothing to do with how life came into existence.
>then by chance changed into new kinds,
The universe is deterministic and chaotic, not ruled by chance.
>As far as we know, life comes only from life.
In the current environment. This wasn't the environment when life
began, so no.
> This can be proven by SM.
You can observe the early Earth?
> As far as we know, organisms reproduce after their kind
1) Define 'kind'.
2) Speciation has been observed hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
>no variations going beyond the family kind.
We're talking scientific method here. There's no scientific tern,
'family kind'.
>What is a Kind you may ask? Genus prehaps?
Perhaps? Perhaps not? The term can't be used scientifically until
it's defined scientifically.
Science claims evolution between species, not between genera.
>what make a wolf, and what makes a dog? Geneticly they are the same
>but behaviour wise, they are different
There's more variation in individual members of a wolf pack than there
is between wolves in general and dogs in general.
>therefore some scientist may
>have different opinion on defintion of a "kind", Hell.. they can cant
>come to an agreement to the defintion of Species.
Sure they can. That you don't know the definition doesn't make any
difference. There are so many thing you don't know that, if your lack
of knowledge meant anything, we'd need planets full of books to tell
us what it meant.
--
"religion did for bullshit, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
- The World Famous Tink
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
|
|
| | From: | EarlCox | | Subject: | Re: tobsRe: Big Bang Confirmed - Again | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:57:23 GMT |
|
|
|
Geez, everyone! This discussion on whether evolution is a fact or not has
been ploughing it's way through the news groups for ... well, its seems like
forever. The creationists and anti-evolutionists are never going to be
swayed. The few of us scientific types are never going to change their
minds. Who cares if they believe God created the heavens and the earth? Who
cares if they believe the scientific method works to their advantage? What a
tremendous and long standing waste of time!
No one is arguing about gravitation, QED or QCD or plate tectonics. etc.
even though they have the word "theory" in front of them. Evolution strikes
a very deep and very personal and very horrifying cord in these people. They
NEED to prove it is wrong in order to feel secure not only in their beliefs
but also in their eternal rewards after they die.
Let it go.
Let them believe what they want.
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:50l8v01cm476694hsih16jchbt2d8q8dug@4ax.com...
> On 23 Jan 2005 14:29:42 -0800, Jabriol@excite.com said in alt.atheism:
>
> >New Scientist: "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."-June 25, 1981, p. 828.
>
> Very few people still hold with classical Darwinism.
>
> >Could it be, that they conclude, that the theory of evolution does not
> >pass SM?
>
> Which theory? Darwin's? Maybe.
>
> Which has what to do with the fact of evolution? (And evolution has
> been observed - every day - so it *IS* a fact.)
>
> >depending on your defintion of evolution; Evolution claims that life
> >came into existence by chance
>
> Evolution has nothing to do with how life came into existence.
>
> >then by chance changed into new kinds,
>
> The universe is deterministic and chaotic, not ruled by chance.
>
> >As far as we know, life comes only from life.
>
> In the current environment. This wasn't the environment when life
> began, so no.
>
> > This can be proven by SM.
>
> You can observe the early Earth?
>
> > As far as we know, organisms reproduce after their kind
>
> 1) Define 'kind'.
> 2) Speciation has been observed hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
>
> >no variations going beyond the family kind.
>
> We're talking scientific method here. There's no scientific tern,
> 'family kind'.
>
> >What is a Kind you may ask? Genus prehaps?
>
> Perhaps? Perhaps not? The term can't be used scientifically until
> it's defined scientifically.
>
> Science claims evolution between species, not between genera.
>
> >what make a wolf, and what makes a dog? Geneticly they are the same
> >but behaviour wise, they are different
>
> There's more variation in individual members of a wolf pack than there
> is between wolves in general and dogs in general.
>
> >therefore some scientist may
> >have different opinion on defintion of a "kind", Hell.. they can cant
> >come to an agreement to the defintion of Species.
>
> Sure they can. That you don't know the definition doesn't make any
> difference. There are so many thing you don't know that, if your lack
> of knowledge meant anything, we'd need planets full of books to tell
> us what it meant.
> --
> "religion did for bullshit, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
> - The World Famous Tink
> (random sig, produced by SigChanger)
> rukbat at verizon dot net
|
|
| | From: | Dan Wood | | Subject: | Re: tobsRe: Big Bang Confirmed - Again | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:20:54 -0500 |
|
|
|
"EarlCox" wrote in message
news:nuZId.39095$dt3.3293033@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
> Geez, everyone! This discussion on whether evolution is a fact or not has
> been ploughing it's way through the news groups for ... well, its seems
> like
> forever. The creationists and anti-evolutionists are never going to be
> swayed. The few of us scientific types are never going to change their
> minds. Who cares if they believe God created the heavens and the earth?
> Who
> cares if they believe the scientific method works to their advantage? What
> a
> tremendous and long standing waste of time!
>
> No one is arguing about gravitation, QED or QCD or plate tectonics. etc.
> even though they have the word "theory" in front of them. Evolution
> strikes
> a very deep and very personal and very horrifying cord in these people.
> They
> NEED to prove it is wrong in order to feel secure not only in their
> beliefs
> but also in their eternal rewards after they die.
>
> Let it go.
> Let them believe what they want.
>
Not all objections to evolution are motivated by religion. There are
some of us who have disagreement, but not from religious ideals.
In fact, there is nothing in the Judo-Christian religious traditions
that can be brought to bear against evolution.
As a matter of fact, Genesis advocates both abiogenesis and
evolution. Verses 11 states, "and God said, let the earth bring forth
grass and the fruit tree...."
and verse 20 says "and God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly
the moving creatures that hath life..." So in my humble view, Genesis
does not conflict with Science. It's the interpretatiors of Genesis who
who are in error!
Dr. Dan Wood
>
>
>
>
> "Al Klein" wrote in message
> news:50l8v01cm476694hsih16jchbt2d8q8dug@4ax.com...
>> On 23 Jan 2005 14:29:42 -0800, Jabriol@excite.com said in alt.atheism:
>>
>> >New Scientist: "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."-June 25, 1981, p. 828.
>>
>> Very few people still hold with classical Darwinism.
>>
>> >Could it be, that they conclude, that the theory of evolution does not
>> >pass SM?
>>
>> Which theory? Darwin's? Maybe.
>>
>> Which has what to do with the fact of evolution? (And evolution has
>> been observed - every day - so it *IS* a fact.)
>>
>> >depending on your defintion of evolution; Evolution claims that life
>> >came into existence by chance
>>
>> Evolution has nothing to do with how life came into existence.
>>
>> >then by chance changed into new kinds,
>>
>> The universe is deterministic and chaotic, not ruled by chance.
>>
>> >As far as we know, life comes only from life.
>>
>> In the current environment. This wasn't the environment when life
>> began, so no.
>>
>> > This can be proven by SM.
>>
>> You can observe the early Earth?
>>
>> > As far as we know, organisms reproduce after their kind
>>
>> 1) Define 'kind'.
>> 2) Speciation has been observed hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
>>
>> >no variations going beyond the family kind.
>>
>> We're talking scientific method here. There's no scientific tern,
>> 'family kind'.
>>
>> >What is a Kind you may ask? Genus prehaps?
>>
>> Perhaps? Perhaps not? The term can't be used scientifically until
>> it's defined scientifically.
>>
>> Science claims evolution between species, not between genera.
>>
>> >what make a wolf, and what makes a dog? Geneticly they are the same
>> >but behaviour wise, they are different
>>
>> There's more variation in individual members of a wolf pack than there
>> is between wolves in general and dogs in general.
>>
>> >therefore some scientist may
>> >have different opinion on defintion of a "kind", Hell.. they can cant
>> >come to an agreement to the defintion of Species.
>>
>> Sure they can. That you don't know the definition doesn't make any
>> difference. There are so many thing you don't know that, if your lack
>> of knowledge meant anything, we'd need planets full of books to tell
>> us what it meant.
>> --
>> "religion did for bullshit, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
>> - The World Famous Tink
>> (random sig, produced by SigChanger)
>> rukbat at verizon dot net
>
>
|
|
| | From: | EarlCox | | Subject: | Re: tobsRe: Big Bang Confirmed - Again | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:55:52 GMT |
|
|
| Dan,
You make a good point. And I certainly believe that arguing over the
specific mechanics of the evolutionary process is itself a valid process. I
just see so many of these discussions fall back to name calling and
unsupported claims when the writer lacks a clear understanding of the
methods and purpose of science.
I also see that the discussions on evolution tend to grind on and on,
constantly repeating themselves with different players. It would be nice to
find a collection of contributors who could enumerate a small set of
questions that would be pivotal to resolving an equally small set of basic
issues in the debate and then address these in a rational manner without
resorting to shouting and low grade flame wars. Start with a manageable set
of issues, get agreement, and then move to another set of issues.
This could be a real opportunity to have a reasoned debate on the
relationship between paleontological research, evolutionary sciences, and
the scientific method. As the Catholic Church learned in the 17th century,
insisting that something is true doesn't make it true.
earl
"Dan Wood" wrote in message
news:Mr0Jd.1588$ky2.194@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "EarlCox" wrote in message
> news:nuZId.39095$dt3.3293033@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > Geez, everyone! This discussion on whether evolution is a fact or not
has
> > been ploughing it's way through the news groups for ... well, its seems
> > like
> > forever. The creationists and anti-evolutionists are never going to be
> > swayed. The few of us scientific types are never going to change their
> > minds. Who cares if they believe God created the heavens and the earth?
> > Who
> > cares if they believe the scientific method works to their advantage?
What
> > a
> > tremendous and long standing waste of time!
> >
> > No one is arguing about gravitation, QED or QCD or plate tectonics. etc.
> > even though they have the word "theory" in front of them. Evolution
> > strikes
> > a very deep and very personal and very horrifying cord in these people.
> > They
> > NEED to prove it is wrong in order to feel secure not only in their
> > beliefs
> > but also in their eternal rewards after they die.
> >
> > Let it go.
> > Let them believe what they want.
> >
> Not all objections to evolution are motivated by religion. There are
> some of us who have disagreement, but not from religious ideals.
> In fact, there is nothing in the Judo-Christian religious traditions
> that can be brought to bear against evolution.
> As a matter of fact, Genesis advocates both abiogenesis and
> evolution. Verses 11 states, "and God said, let the earth bring forth
> grass and the fruit tree...."
> and verse 20 says "and God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly
> the moving creatures that hath life..." So in my humble view, Genesis
> does not conflict with Science. It's the interpretatiors of Genesis who
> who are in error!
>
> Dr. Dan Wood
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Al Klein" wrote in message
> > news:50l8v01cm476694hsih16jchbt2d8q8dug@4ax.com...
> >> On 23 Jan 2005 14:29:42 -0800, Jabriol@excite.com said in alt.atheism:
> >>
> >> >New Scientist: "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."-June 25, 1981, p. 828.
> >>
> >> Very few people still hold with classical Darwinism.
> >>
> >> >Could it be, that they conclude, that the theory of evolution does not
> >> >pass SM?
> >>
> >> Which theory? Darwin's? Maybe.
> >>
> >> Which has what to do with the fact of evolution? (And evolution has
> >> been observed - every day - so it *IS* a fact.)
> >>
> >> >depending on your defintion of evolution; Evolution claims that life
> >> >came into existence by chance
> >>
> >> Evolution has nothing to do with how life came into existence.
> >>
> >> >then by chance changed into new kinds,
> >>
> >> The universe is deterministic and chaotic, not ruled by chance.
> >>
> >> >As far as we know, life comes only from life.
> >>
> >> In the current environment. This wasn't the environment when life
> >> began, so no.
> >>
> >> > This can be proven by SM.
> >>
> >> You can observe the early Earth?
> >>
> >> > As far as we know, organisms reproduce after their kind
> >>
> >> 1) Define 'kind'.
> >> 2) Speciation has been observed hundreds, if not thousands, of times.
> >>
> >> >no variations going beyond the family kind.
> >>
> >> We're talking scientific method here. There's no scientific tern,
> >> 'family kind'.
> >>
> >> >What is a Kind you may ask? Genus prehaps?
> >>
> >> Perhaps? Perhaps not? The term can't be used scientifically until
> >> it's defined scientifically.
> >>
> >> Science claims evolution between species, not between genera.
> >>
> >> >what make a wolf, and what makes a dog? Geneticly they are the same
> >> >but behaviour wise, they are different
> >>
> >> There's more variation in individual members of a wolf pack than there
> >> is between wolves in general and dogs in general.
> >>
> >> >therefore some scientist may
> >> >have different opinion on defintion of a "kind", Hell.. they can cant
> >> >come to an agreement to the defintion of Species.
> >>
> >> Sure they can. That you don't know the definition doesn't make any
> >> difference. There are so many thing you don't know that, if your lack
> >> of knowledge meant anything, we'd need planets full of books to tell
> >> us what it meant.
> >> --
> >> "religion did for bullshit, what Stonehenge did for rocks"
> >> - The World Famous Tink
> >> (random sig, produced by SigChanger)
> >> rukbat at verizon dot net
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Dan Wood | | Subject: | Re: tobsRe: Big Bang Confirmed - Again | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:08:10 -0500 |
|
|
|
wrote in message
news:1106519382.770935.173380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, LP, BLT, ETC. wrote:
>> wrote in message
>> news:1106070501.561900.77200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Gary Bohn wrote:
>> >> jabriol@fastmail.fm wrote in
>> >>> >
>> >> > yes, yes.. please tell us how evolution pass the Scientific
> Method.
>> >> > every time I ask this question.. the thread dies..
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You are not worth answering.
>> >>
>> >
>> > translation: " I do not know the answer, and therefore my reply
> will be
>> > an ad-hom attack"
>>
>> So Jabriol, what part of the Scientific Method do you think evolution
> does
>> not "pass"?
>>
>> Or do we need to explain Scientific Method to you all over again?
>
> Let see first if I got SM correct:
>
> 1. Observe what happens.
>
> 2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
>
> 3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
>
> 4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true
>
You should understand that historical sciences, such as archeology,
anthropology, paleontology etc. cannot be tested or repeated.
They cannot be subjected to predictions or experments except of
a very narrow and confined basis.
Dr. Dan Wood, DDS
>
>
> That being said, let me know if it is correct, note the following
> mentioned by a a peer review journal:
>
> New Scientist: "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."-June 25, 1981, p. 828.
>
Actually Darwinism knew nothing about genetics, mutations,
distribution or DNA. Darwinism in it's origional form is no
longer is accepted. Neo-Darwinism, a unification of Mendelian
Genetics is the current theory.
is
>
> Could it be, that they conclude, that the theory of evolution does not
> pass SM?
>
In it's original form? You are right!
>
> depending on your defintion of evolution; Evolution claims that life
> came into existence by chance,
>
No! This is abiogenesis, which has to be valid hypothesis. It implies
that life is a fortutious combination or reaction between various and
sundry chemicals which over vast periods of time caused complex
self-replicating molecules to form (RNA World)
then by chance changed into new kinds,
> all the way from amoebas to men.
>
Bacterium or antitoxic bacteria to man!
>
> As far as we know, life comes only from life. This can be proven by
> SM... As far as we know, organisms reproduce after their kind, no
> variations going beyond the family kind.
>
"Life comes only from prexisting life", but this is true today,
as Reddi, Verchow and Pasteur proved, but in the distant
past, the enviroment was entirely different. So we would
expect from a different outcome from a different enviroment .
Life must have arose in the remote past. The proof is you
and countless other living organisms.
>>>
These are facts observed and
> also confirmed by experiments. The spontaneous generation of life has
> not been observed; nor has it been accomplished by experiments.
>
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>
One
> kind has not been observed changing into another kind; nor can it be
> made to happen in experiments. Evolution cannot be verified by the
> scientific method. Not even by the intervention of human intelligence
> can life be created or changed into a different kind. What is a Kind
> you may ask? Genus prehaps?
> what make a wolf, and what makes a dog? Geneticly they are the same
> but behaviour wise, they are different, therefore some scientist may
> have different opinion on defintion of a "kind", Hell.. they can cant
> come to an agreement to the defintion of Species.
>
> Many fossils within the family kinds have been found, but none showing
> the millions of changes that would have had to take place to turn one
> kind into another. Faith alone supports the evolutionist's belief in
> spontaneous generation of life.
>
In reality, the orgin of life and the evolution of life are two different
subjects studied by two different scientific disciplines.
Also required: faith in fossils that he
> has never found and faith in mutations that he has never seen.
>
THis is wrong! Fossils are real, the history of fossils have changed
over time. This is an undisputed _fact_. Mutations as well has
been seen, however, they tend to be degenerative leading to genetic
loss of information, heritable genetic diseases and defects.
Beneficial mutations have also been seen. The cycle cell mutation
to name one.
>
> Evolution is a philosophy, but it masquerades as a science. It puts
> faith in "chance" as creator of the millions of complicated,
> purposeful designs in living things.
>
Change is real! But this does not rule out God. Indeed it gives
God an added grandeur. Einstein's God who is the cause of
the universe and the order and mathematical logic by which
we are able to understand so much about the creation. This
is evidence of the God.
Regards,
Dan Wood, DDS
|
|
|
