Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Evolution Vs Science
11 views
Skip to first unread message
BroilJAB
May 24, 2012, 5:00:16 AM5/24/12
to
Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
Caranx latus
May 24, 2012, 9:14:57 AM5/24/12
to
Ken
May 24, 2012, 9:57:52 AM5/24/12
to
He loses everytime
On May 24, 6:14 am, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 'Fess up... your planet has green skies, doesn't it?
That's the color the mental ward's dayroom
On May 24, 6:14 am, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 'Fess up... your planet has green skies, doesn't it?
Uirgil
May 24, 2012, 8:07:02 PM5/24/12
to
In article
<28a8c101-54fb-4bdb...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Evolution is a science, which means it is a summary of millions of facts.
> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
As is evolution if ever any fact transpire which counter its statements.
Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching to be wrong.
<28a8c101-54fb-4bdb...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
Wrong!
> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
Evolution is a science, which means it is a summary of millions of facts.
> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching to be wrong.
Uirgil
May 25, 2012, 1:15:39 AM5/25/12
to
In article
<06de99b0-e678-4d66...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
Evolution , being a scientific theory,
is much more important than a mere fact.
It is, in fact, a summary of millions of facts in the form of a
scientific theory, into which those millions of facts fit together,
like all other scientific theories
<06de99b0-e678-4d66...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
Evolution , being a scientific theory,
is much more important than a mere fact.
It is, in fact, a summary of millions of facts in the form of a
scientific theory, into which those millions of facts fit together,
like all other scientific theories
Uirgil
May 25, 2012, 6:01:52 PM5/25/12
to
In article
<4345498f-c73f-4342...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Scientists who go about teaching that evolution
> is a fact
Thy don't, they tech it as a theory, like the theory of gravitation or
quantum field theory.
<4345498f-c73f-4342...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Scientists who go about teaching that evolution
> is a fact
Thy don't, they tech it as a theory, like the theory of gravitation or
quantum field theory.
Waldo Tunnel
May 27, 2012, 2:26:05 AM5/27/12
to
On May 24, 10:15 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> In article
> <06de99b0-e678-4d66-8493-538ca6333...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
fact he wrote an article about it. I'll dig it up if you want to read
it.
> In article
> <06de99b0-e678-4d66-8493-538ca6333...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > Evolution is a known fact
>
> Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
>
> Evolution , being a scientific theory,
> is much more important than a mere fact.
The late Stephen J. Gould said evolution was a fact...and a theory. In
> BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > Evolution is a known fact
>
> Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
>
> Evolution , being a scientific theory,
> is much more important than a mere fact.
fact he wrote an article about it. I'll dig it up if you want to read
it.
ilbe...@gmail.com
May 27, 2012, 9:14:44 AM5/27/12
to
Faith that a non intelligent pond protozoa worked its way up to all
living species of animals, humans, and plant life. Toss in unlimited
chance and time, and wullah...anything can and will happen. Fairy
tale to reject God almighty .
Free Lunch
May 27, 2012, 10:23:42 AM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 06:14:44 -0700 (PDT), "IlBe...@gmail.com"
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 24, 4:00 am, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
>
>Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
You are repeating lies of science-hating frauds who preach false
religious doctrines.
>Faith that a non intelligent pond protozoa worked its way up to all
>living species of animals, humans, and plant life. Toss in unlimited
>chance and time, and wullah...anything can and will happen. Fairy
>tale to reject God almighty .
You have no idea what you are talking about. You need to stop
worshipping your own ignorance.
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On May 24, 4:00 am, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
>
>Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
religious doctrines.
>Faith that a non intelligent pond protozoa worked its way up to all
>living species of animals, humans, and plant life. Toss in unlimited
>chance and time, and wullah...anything can and will happen. Fairy
>tale to reject God almighty .
worshipping your own ignorance.
linuxgal
May 27, 2012, 10:27:06 AM5/27/12
to
IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 24, 4:00 am, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
>
> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
No one talks about macroevolution except creationists. It's all
> On May 24, 4:00 am, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
>
> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
microevolution. Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
Andrew
May 27, 2012, 2:42:12 PM5/27/12
to
"linuxgal" wrote in message news:26qdnefLtrT3p1_S...@giganews.com...
> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's all microevolution.
Only within genetic limits.
> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
Thus we see that the deception continues, and
the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> BroilJAB wrote:
>>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
>>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
>>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
>>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
>>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
>>
>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
>
> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
>>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
>>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
>>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
>>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
>>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
>>
>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
>
> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
> It's all microevolution.
Only within genetic limits.
> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
linuxgal
May 27, 2012, 3:07:10 PM5/27/12
to
Free Lunch
May 27, 2012, 3:14:40 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 11:42:12 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"linuxgal" wrote in message news:26qdnefLtrT3p1_S...@giganews.com...
>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> BroilJAB wrote:
>>>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
>>>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
>>>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
>>>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
>>>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
>>>
>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
>>
>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
>
>Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
There is a technical definition of macroevolution, but that is not what
the science-denying creationists are using.
>> It's all microevolution.
>
>Only within genetic limits.
You have never presented any evidence to support your allegation that
there are genetic limits.
>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>
>Thus we see that the deception continues, and
>the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
You are so committed to your lies about your false religious doctrines
that we will never see you address the facts that have been pointed out
to you.
Why does your god need you to lie on his behalf?
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>"linuxgal" wrote in message news:26qdnefLtrT3p1_S...@giganews.com...
>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> BroilJAB wrote:
>>>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
>>>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
>>>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
>>>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
>>>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
>>>
>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
>>
>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
>
>Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
the science-denying creationists are using.
>> It's all microevolution.
>
>Only within genetic limits.
there are genetic limits.
>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>
>Thus we see that the deception continues, and
>the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
that we will never see you address the facts that have been pointed out
to you.
Why does your god need you to lie on his behalf?
Jeanne Douglas
May 27, 2012, 5:50:19 PM5/27/12
to
In article
<c5e2e41a-0051-424e...@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Gawd, so you have ANY idea how boring you've become?
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
<c5e2e41a-0051-424e...@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
Uergil
May 27, 2012, 6:42:58 PM5/27/12
to
In article <49Odncg9PuXe6F_S...@earthlink.com>,
objective physical evidence of their claim if they wish to see in
accepted.
There is considerable objective physical evidence at least strongly
suggesting, if not totally proving, that it has occurred, and inteligent
people follow that sort of evidence, rather than religious mythology.
physical evidence exists, not by evolution for which lots of objective
physical evidence exixts.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "linuxgal" wrote in message
> news:26qdnefLtrT3p1_S...@giganews.com...
> > IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> BroilJAB wrote:
> >>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
> >>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
> >>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
> >>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
> >>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
> >>
> >> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >
> > No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
>
> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
Those who claim macro-evolution has never occurred need to provide
> "linuxgal" wrote in message
> news:26qdnefLtrT3p1_S...@giganews.com...
> > IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> BroilJAB wrote:
> >>> Evolution is a known fact, no proof available or needed.
> >>> Science is falsifiable, testable no frauds accepted.
> >>> Evolution has never been shown in 150 years searching.
> >>> Science is demonstrable and reproducible each time.
> >>> Evolution must be accepted as a guiding dogma.
> >>
> >> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >
> > No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
>
> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
objective physical evidence of their claim if they wish to see in
accepted.
There is considerable objective physical evidence at least strongly
suggesting, if not totally proving, that it has occurred, and inteligent
people follow that sort of evidence, rather than religious mythology.
>
> > It's all microevolution.
>
> Only within genetic limits.
>
> > Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>
> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
They are only deceived by creationism, for which absolutely no objective
> > It's all microevolution.
>
> Only within genetic limits.
>
> > Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>
> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
physical evidence exists, not by evolution for which lots of objective
physical evidence exixts.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less
remote from the- truth who believes nothing than
he who believes what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew
May 27, 2012, 8:25:57 PM5/27/12
to
"linuxgal" wrote in message news:tYednQRbIOuW4V_S...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:
going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
do at the original creation.
This continues as is expected in the Creation model
of origins.
> Andrew wrote:
>> "linuxgal" wrote:
>>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
>>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
>>
>> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
>>
>>> It's all microevolution.
>>
>> Only within genetic limits.
>>
>>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>>
>> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
>> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
>
> Descent with variation, and deep time.
Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
>>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
>>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
>>
>> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
>>
>>> It's all microevolution.
>>
>> Only within genetic limits.
>>
>>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>>
>> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
>> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
>
> Descent with variation, and deep time.
going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
do at the original creation.
This continues as is expected in the Creation model
of origins.
Me
May 27, 2012, 8:39:00 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 6:14 am, "IlBenButtfucked @gmail.com" wrote: Nothing worth
repeating, just his usual worthless babble and dribble
No one gives a FUCK what you think, Dicksucker
repeating, just his usual worthless babble and dribble
No one gives a FUCK what you think, Dicksucker
linuxgal
May 27, 2012, 8:48:29 PM5/27/12
to
Andrew wrote:
> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> do at the original creation.
What is a genetic limit? What is the limiting mechanism?
> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> do at the original creation.
Jeanne Douglas
May 27, 2012, 9:35:40 PM5/27/12
to
In article <NK-dnYa6l89TWF_S...@earthlink.com>,
Why do you continue to refuse to explain what these genetic limits are
and why they are? I know people have asked you dozens of times, so why
are you so rude that you refuse to answer a legitimate question?
and why they are? I know people have asked you dozens of times, so why
are you so rude that you refuse to answer a legitimate question?
Free Lunch
May 27, 2012, 10:28:58 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:25:57 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Andrew keeps making his foolish claim about "within genetic limits" but
always ignores everyone's request that he back up his claim with
evidence. That is because he knows that no evidence supports his claim,
that he is only preaching a false religious doctrine.
>This continues as is expected in the Creation model
>of origins.
The one that does not exist and ignores all physical evidence that the
false doctrine is indeed false.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
always ignores everyone's request that he back up his claim with
evidence. That is because he knows that no evidence supports his claim,
that he is only preaching a false religious doctrine.
>This continues as is expected in the Creation model
>of origins.
false doctrine is indeed false.
Uergil
May 27, 2012, 10:49:46 PM5/27/12
to
> "linuxgal" wrote in message
> news:tYednQRbIOuW4V_S...@giganews.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
> >>
> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
> >>
> >>> It's all microevolution.
> >>
> >> Only within genetic limits.
Except those "genetic limits", given the long time since life began on
> news:tYednQRbIOuW4V_S...@giganews.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
> >>
> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
> >>
> >>> It's all microevolution.
> >>
> >> Only within genetic limits.
Earth, spread out to encompass the genetics of every living thing on
Earth.
> >>
> >>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
> >>
> >> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> >> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
> >
> > Descent with variation, and deep time.
>
> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> do at the original creation.
Earth, spread out to encompass the genetics of every living thing on
Earth.
Andrew
May 28, 2012, 4:51:16 AM5/28/12
to
"linuxgal" wrote in message news:icidnUlAub6XUV_S...@giganews.com...
> What is the limiting mechanism?
Simply the lack of genetic information.
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
>> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
>> do at the original creation.
>
> What is a genetic limit?
Simply the limit of genetic information.
>
>> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
>> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
>> do at the original creation.
>
> What is a genetic limit?
> What is the limiting mechanism?
Andrew
May 28, 2012, 4:51:29 AM5/28/12
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd-411587...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
help if you would memorize the following axiom..
"The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
gene pool will not exceed the genetic information
that is contained therein."
~ Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "linuxgal" wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
>> >>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
>> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
>> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
>> >>
>> >>> It's all microevolution.
>> >>
>> >> Only within genetic limits.
>> >>
>> >>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>> >>
>> >> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
>> >> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
>> >
>> > Descent with variation, and deep time.
>>
>> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
>> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
>> do at the original creation.
>
>
> Why do you continue to refuse to explain what these
> genetic limits are and why they are? I know people have
> asked you dozens of times, so why are you so rude that
> you refuse to answer a legitimate question?
Here is the answer to your question, and it would
>> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
>> >>> IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
>> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
>> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
>> >>
>> >>> It's all microevolution.
>> >>
>> >> Only within genetic limits.
>> >>
>> >>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>> >>
>> >> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
>> >> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
>> >
>> > Descent with variation, and deep time.
>>
>> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
>> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
>> do at the original creation.
>
>
> Why do you continue to refuse to explain what these
> genetic limits are and why they are? I know people have
> asked you dozens of times, so why are you so rude that
> you refuse to answer a legitimate question?
help if you would memorize the following axiom..
"The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
gene pool will not exceed the genetic information
that is contained therein."
~ Andrew
Jeanne Douglas
May 28, 2012, 5:47:20 AM5/28/12
to
In article <7qmdnX2I-cLWoV7S...@earthlink.com>,
You do know, I hope, that that is a meaningless statement?? I mean,
COMPLETELY meaningless.
JD
COMPLETELY meaningless.
JD
Birric Forcella
May 28, 2012, 5:55:21 AM5/28/12
to
The old Greeks thought that the world was a bowl riding on a turtle.
Now that explained some things. For one thing, it explained why the
oceans didn't drip away as they would from a flat disk. Many such
naïve explanations of things were offered all over the world in all
cultures.
As time went on, something funny happened. People looking at nature,
here and there, found facts, many facts that could not be doubted.
But that alone does not establish science. Most people think science
works by just accumulating facts, like identifying ever more plants or
animals. That is only the beginning.
Then something even funnier happened. Those facts started to hang
together. One fact or event could be clearly seen to be the reason -
and the only needed reason - for another event, and slowly those
events started to fit together in chains of events. To be sure, for
centuries, those chains were short, often contradictory, and couldn't
be connected to chains in other fields.
That changed very very slowly. The moments of insight that connected
important chains of explanation are today celebrated as the great
defining breakthroughs in science. Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Darwin,
Einstein - you have heard the names. It was not until Einstein that a
scientist could credibly state that ALL laws of nature are in force at
ALL times under ALL conditions in EVERY place in the universe, uniting
for the first time all of physics (and chemistry and biology).
The most amazing of these insights came 50 years earlier with Darwin.
Before Darwin, all animal species existed in an unconnected, separate
way. People assumed they were created by god, separately, though god
may have reused some templates, creating related species. After
Darwin all these animals (and plants) were neatly ordered in one huge
tree of explanations. Evolution provided the unifying concept.
By the way, the important aspect of Darwin's insight is not that he
connected all these animals. Even a creationist can do that.
Darwin's insight and hunch (by now amply confirmed) was that evolution
was the sufficient and COMPLETE factor for the tree of animals to
appear and that NO outside intervention was necessary.
All of our universe is connected, much like Darwin's animal tree, in
one huge tree structure that originated in the Big Bang. It connects
every atom, every molecule, every cell, every continent, every planet,
every star, every galaxy. Just as in Darwin's theory, It connects
through natural laws. No designer is needed.
Every event in the universe happens within the environment of other
events which are the full and complete explanation for it - and it is
the full explanation or part of the full explanation for other events
that follow it.
Some events may be linked simply within a chain of explanations
(explanatory events). Most will be within a larger context that
creates a tree structure, much like the animals in Darwin's theory.
If something has an explanation, it must fit into an explanation
tree. This tree must somewhere link up with the overall explanation
tree underlying the totality of our universe.
That does not mean that we have the explanation or full explanation
now. It only means that, fundamentally, the explanation must exist,
possibly we will find it in the future, possibly, like the weather, it
may be too complex to ever fully chart.
However, it can't be any other way. For if some event or fact did,
fundamentally, NOT have an explanation, it would be supernatural. Its
reason would have to lie somewhere outside of our universe. No such
'unnatural' fact has ever been credibly observed.
Quantum mechanics is not a counterexample. It's a completely natural
phenomenon. It follows extremely clear and well-established laws and
it makes incredibly precise predictions. None of the predictions of
quantum mechanics have ever failed.
When a young child starts to learn, it has no explanations for
anything. As he learns, he forms explanations for the things around
him. All subjects he studies in school provide (hopefully) valid
explanations which the child assembles into a personal explanation
tree which, more or less, covers his world. As he grows in knowledge,
better explanations supplant worse ones (hopefully).
This is how all legitimate learning and insight proceeds of
necessity. Better explanations fundamentally underlie all of
philosophy and all of science. We don't have all of them yet, but
that is the only direction in which we can legitimately go.
All knowledge we can ever gain finds its place within such a personal
tree of explanations, and it is grown with and from better
explanations.
The concept of 'better explanations' necessarily means that ALL
explanations, no matter how well established, are open to constant
reexamination. There is never such a thing as truth. There is not
even such a thing as secure knowledge. All we have and will ever have
are the best possible current explanations.
Better explanations require no axions or beliefs. Indeed they are
violently opposed to them. Axioms must endlessly be questioned. Only
in that way can they be assured to remain better explanations, if
indeed they are. The same holds for beliefs. You can, at present
have any belief about the Big Bang you want. We know little about
it. But that is exactly the point. All claims about the Big Bang are
arguments from ignorance. On the other hand, all trees of
explanations terminate somewhere. That is true today and was true in
history. We have an unlimited number of places where our current
knowledge of biology, geology, physics, chemistry, etc. stops.
Evolution currently terminates with abiogenesis. The terminus always
had and has a little note attached: "Here better explanations are
needed." So what if currently the tree terminates at the Big Bang?
There is no need to be alarmed about that fact.
Don't confuse explanations with empiricism. Empiricism, as all
philosophies, requires axioms plus deductions. Explanation trees -
meaning the fact that explanations connect - are their own
explanation. They are a rock-bottom feature of the universe.
Explanations work forward and backward. We explain events in history
and cosmology by following the tree of explanations backward, without
speculating where it might end. For the moment it ends for us at the
Big Bang. But the Big Bang is open to better explanations in the
future and replace them with dogma. Claiming that "god did it" would
cut off explanations at that point and replace them with dogma. That
is an illegitimate move.
Explanations will go forward through all of coming history. We have
not the slightest reason to assume that somewhere they would break
off. That would be a supernatural event.
So, I propose that instead of thinking in terms of skepticism or
secure knowledge, we rather think in terms of explanations and better
explanations. That removes the unease of skepticism and the sloth of
secure knowledge. It also provides a worldview that is essentially
unassailable by woo woo, supernaturalists, faithheads and the like.
How about it?
Birric Forcella
Better explanations rule !
Now that explained some things. For one thing, it explained why the
oceans didn't drip away as they would from a flat disk. Many such
naïve explanations of things were offered all over the world in all
cultures.
As time went on, something funny happened. People looking at nature,
here and there, found facts, many facts that could not be doubted.
But that alone does not establish science. Most people think science
works by just accumulating facts, like identifying ever more plants or
animals. That is only the beginning.
Then something even funnier happened. Those facts started to hang
together. One fact or event could be clearly seen to be the reason -
and the only needed reason - for another event, and slowly those
events started to fit together in chains of events. To be sure, for
centuries, those chains were short, often contradictory, and couldn't
be connected to chains in other fields.
That changed very very slowly. The moments of insight that connected
important chains of explanation are today celebrated as the great
defining breakthroughs in science. Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Darwin,
Einstein - you have heard the names. It was not until Einstein that a
scientist could credibly state that ALL laws of nature are in force at
ALL times under ALL conditions in EVERY place in the universe, uniting
for the first time all of physics (and chemistry and biology).
The most amazing of these insights came 50 years earlier with Darwin.
Before Darwin, all animal species existed in an unconnected, separate
way. People assumed they were created by god, separately, though god
may have reused some templates, creating related species. After
Darwin all these animals (and plants) were neatly ordered in one huge
tree of explanations. Evolution provided the unifying concept.
By the way, the important aspect of Darwin's insight is not that he
connected all these animals. Even a creationist can do that.
Darwin's insight and hunch (by now amply confirmed) was that evolution
was the sufficient and COMPLETE factor for the tree of animals to
appear and that NO outside intervention was necessary.
All of our universe is connected, much like Darwin's animal tree, in
one huge tree structure that originated in the Big Bang. It connects
every atom, every molecule, every cell, every continent, every planet,
every star, every galaxy. Just as in Darwin's theory, It connects
through natural laws. No designer is needed.
Every event in the universe happens within the environment of other
events which are the full and complete explanation for it - and it is
the full explanation or part of the full explanation for other events
that follow it.
Some events may be linked simply within a chain of explanations
(explanatory events). Most will be within a larger context that
creates a tree structure, much like the animals in Darwin's theory.
If something has an explanation, it must fit into an explanation
tree. This tree must somewhere link up with the overall explanation
tree underlying the totality of our universe.
That does not mean that we have the explanation or full explanation
now. It only means that, fundamentally, the explanation must exist,
possibly we will find it in the future, possibly, like the weather, it
may be too complex to ever fully chart.
However, it can't be any other way. For if some event or fact did,
fundamentally, NOT have an explanation, it would be supernatural. Its
reason would have to lie somewhere outside of our universe. No such
'unnatural' fact has ever been credibly observed.
Quantum mechanics is not a counterexample. It's a completely natural
phenomenon. It follows extremely clear and well-established laws and
it makes incredibly precise predictions. None of the predictions of
quantum mechanics have ever failed.
When a young child starts to learn, it has no explanations for
anything. As he learns, he forms explanations for the things around
him. All subjects he studies in school provide (hopefully) valid
explanations which the child assembles into a personal explanation
tree which, more or less, covers his world. As he grows in knowledge,
better explanations supplant worse ones (hopefully).
This is how all legitimate learning and insight proceeds of
necessity. Better explanations fundamentally underlie all of
philosophy and all of science. We don't have all of them yet, but
that is the only direction in which we can legitimately go.
All knowledge we can ever gain finds its place within such a personal
tree of explanations, and it is grown with and from better
explanations.
The concept of 'better explanations' necessarily means that ALL
explanations, no matter how well established, are open to constant
reexamination. There is never such a thing as truth. There is not
even such a thing as secure knowledge. All we have and will ever have
are the best possible current explanations.
Better explanations require no axions or beliefs. Indeed they are
violently opposed to them. Axioms must endlessly be questioned. Only
in that way can they be assured to remain better explanations, if
indeed they are. The same holds for beliefs. You can, at present
have any belief about the Big Bang you want. We know little about
it. But that is exactly the point. All claims about the Big Bang are
arguments from ignorance. On the other hand, all trees of
explanations terminate somewhere. That is true today and was true in
history. We have an unlimited number of places where our current
knowledge of biology, geology, physics, chemistry, etc. stops.
Evolution currently terminates with abiogenesis. The terminus always
had and has a little note attached: "Here better explanations are
needed." So what if currently the tree terminates at the Big Bang?
There is no need to be alarmed about that fact.
Don't confuse explanations with empiricism. Empiricism, as all
philosophies, requires axioms plus deductions. Explanation trees -
meaning the fact that explanations connect - are their own
explanation. They are a rock-bottom feature of the universe.
Explanations work forward and backward. We explain events in history
and cosmology by following the tree of explanations backward, without
speculating where it might end. For the moment it ends for us at the
Big Bang. But the Big Bang is open to better explanations in the
future and replace them with dogma. Claiming that "god did it" would
cut off explanations at that point and replace them with dogma. That
is an illegitimate move.
Explanations will go forward through all of coming history. We have
not the slightest reason to assume that somewhere they would break
off. That would be a supernatural event.
So, I propose that instead of thinking in terms of skepticism or
secure knowledge, we rather think in terms of explanations and better
explanations. That removes the unease of skepticism and the sloth of
secure knowledge. It also provides a worldview that is essentially
unassailable by woo woo, supernaturalists, faithheads and the like.
How about it?
Birric Forcella
Better explanations rule !
Malte Runz
May 28, 2012, 7:38:36 AM5/28/12
to
"Andrew" skrev i meddelelsen
news:w_GdnUvjZMqjoV7S...@earthlink.com...
Are you saying that each individual (of any life form) has less "genetic
information" than its parents?
--
Malte Runz
news:w_GdnUvjZMqjoV7S...@earthlink.com...
information" than its parents?
--
Malte Runz
linuxgal
May 28, 2012, 9:04:38 AM5/28/12
to
Andrew wrote:
> "The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
> gene pool will not exceed the genetic information
> that is contained therein."
That's like saying "The number of possible novels will not exceed the
> "The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
> gene pool will not exceed the genetic information
> that is contained therein."
number of letters in the alphabet."
Wombat
May 28, 2012, 10:01:20 AM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 10:51 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd-411587...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
with other primates. Usually not a problem with a good supply of
fruit, lethal on a long sea voyage.
People in the Western Hemisphere have a mutation which the people in
the East tend to lack: the ability to digest lactose after weaning.
Is that a good mutation or bad?
Ditto sickle cell. Without it malaria can easily kill. With one
allelle there is some protection against malaria. With both the
painful disease of sickle cell anemia is likely. Is that a good
mutation?
> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in messagenews:hlwdjsd-411587...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >> > Andrew wrote:
> >> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >> > Andrew wrote:
> >> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> >> >>> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
> >> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
>
> >> >>> It's all microevolution.
>
> >> >> Only within genetic limits.
>
> >> >>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>
> >> >> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> >> >> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
>
> >> > Descent with variation, and deep time.
>
> >> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> >> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> >> do at the original creation.
>
> > Why do you continue to refuse to explain what these
> > genetic limits are and why they are? I know people have
> > asked you dozens of times, so why are you so rude that
> > you refuse to answer a legitimate question?
>
> Here is the answer to your question, and it would
> help if you would memorize the following axiom..
>
> "The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
> gene pool will not exceed the genetic information
> that is contained therein."
> ~ Andrew
What of mutations. We share the inability to make our own vitamin C
> >> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> >> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
> >> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
>
> >> >>> It's all microevolution.
>
> >> >> Only within genetic limits.
>
> >> >>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>
> >> >> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> >> >> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
>
> >> > Descent with variation, and deep time.
>
> >> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> >> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> >> do at the original creation.
>
> > Why do you continue to refuse to explain what these
> > genetic limits are and why they are? I know people have
> > asked you dozens of times, so why are you so rude that
> > you refuse to answer a legitimate question?
>
> Here is the answer to your question, and it would
> help if you would memorize the following axiom..
>
> "The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
> gene pool will not exceed the genetic information
> that is contained therein."
> ~ Andrew
with other primates. Usually not a problem with a good supply of
fruit, lethal on a long sea voyage.
People in the Western Hemisphere have a mutation which the people in
the East tend to lack: the ability to digest lactose after weaning.
Is that a good mutation or bad?
Ditto sickle cell. Without it malaria can easily kill. With one
allelle there is some protection against malaria. With both the
painful disease of sickle cell anemia is likely. Is that a good
mutation?
Caranx latus
May 28, 2012, 10:19:33 AM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 5:47 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <7qmdnX2I-cLWoV7SnZ2dnUVZ_vedn...@earthlink.com>,
To Andrew, four questions...
(1) What is "genetic flexibility"?
(2) How is genetic flexibility measured?
(3) What is "genetic information"?
(4) How is genetic information measured?
If you know what you're talking about, Andrew, these questions should
be fairly simple for you to answer. Until I see specific and clear
answers, I'm going to assume that you're pretty much clueless.
One thing you are oblivious to is that all life on the planet forms a
single gene pool, for example.
> In article <7qmdnX2I-cLWoV7SnZ2dnUVZ_vedn...@earthlink.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> >news:hlwdjsd-411587...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> > > "Andrew" wrote:
> > >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> > >> > Andrew wrote:
> > >> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message
> >news:hlwdjsd-411587...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> > > "Andrew" wrote:
> > >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> > >> > Andrew wrote:
> > >> >> "linuxgal" wrote:
> > >> >>> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> > >> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
> > >> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
>
> > >> >>> It's all microevolution.
>
> > >> >> Only within genetic limits.
>
> > >> >>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>
> > >> >> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> > >> >> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
>
> > >> > Descent with variation, and deep time.
>
> > >> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> > >> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> > >> do at the original creation.
>
> > > Why do you continue to refuse to explain what these
> > > genetic limits are and why they are? I know people have
> > > asked you dozens of times, so why are you so rude that
> > > you refuse to answer a legitimate question?
>
> > Here is the answer to your question, and it would
> > help if you would memorize the following axiom..
>
> > "The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
> > gene pool will not exceed the genetic information
> > that is contained therein."
>
> You do know, I hope, that that is a meaningless statement?? I mean,
> COMPLETELY meaningless.
When has that ever stopped Andrew before?
> > >> >>>> Macro evolution is a religion based on enormous required faith.
> > >> >>> No one talks about macroevolution except creationists.
> > >> >> Since it never happened, you now try to deny the word.
>
> > >> >>> It's all microevolution.
>
> > >> >> Only within genetic limits.
>
> > >> >>> Baby steps, and hundreds of millions of years.
>
> > >> >> Thus we see that the deception continues, and
> > >> >> the unthinking multitudes are willingly deceived.
>
> > >> > Descent with variation, and deep time.
>
> > >> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> > >> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> > >> do at the original creation.
>
> > > Why do you continue to refuse to explain what these
> > > genetic limits are and why they are? I know people have
> > > asked you dozens of times, so why are you so rude that
> > > you refuse to answer a legitimate question?
>
> > Here is the answer to your question, and it would
> > help if you would memorize the following axiom..
>
> > "The degree of genetic flexibility possible within a
> > gene pool will not exceed the genetic information
> > that is contained therein."
>
> You do know, I hope, that that is a meaningless statement?? I mean,
> COMPLETELY meaningless.
To Andrew, four questions...
(1) What is "genetic flexibility"?
(2) How is genetic flexibility measured?
(3) What is "genetic information"?
(4) How is genetic information measured?
If you know what you're talking about, Andrew, these questions should
be fairly simple for you to answer. Until I see specific and clear
answers, I'm going to assume that you're pretty much clueless.
One thing you are oblivious to is that all life on the planet forms a
single gene pool, for example.
Caranx latus
May 28, 2012, 10:24:28 AM5/28/12
to
the same thing. Since I don't know what (or... no, don't say it) he
thinks, it's appropriate to ask him to define his terms. Since he
doesn't know what he's talking about, he won't be able to. Instead, I
predict some sort of vague blather from him due to his need to appear
to know what he's talking about without actually investing any time in
the hard work of learning.
Uergil
May 28, 2012, 12:39:36 PM5/28/12
to
In article <w_GdnUvjZMqjoV7S...@earthlink.com>,
The existence of diploids suggests that no such limits exist.
with no provable limit.
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "linuxgal" wrote in message
> news:icidnUlAub6XUV_S...@giganews.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> >> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> >> do at the original creation.
> >
> > What is a genetic limit?
>
> Simply the limit of genetic information.
Where is your proof that any such limit exists?
> "linuxgal" wrote in message
> news:icidnUlAub6XUV_S...@giganews.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> Variation and adaption (within genetic limits) has been
> >> going on exactly as our Creator has programmed it to
> >> do at the original creation.
> >
> > What is a genetic limit?
>
> Simply the limit of genetic information.
The existence of diploids suggests that no such limits exist.
>
> > What is the limiting mechanism?
>
> Simply the lack of genetic information.
Becoming a diploid doubles the potential amount of genetic information,
> > What is the limiting mechanism?
>
> Simply the lack of genetic information.
with no provable limit.
Uergil
May 28, 2012, 12:48:26 PM5/28/12
to
In article
<41552972-4f63-49c2...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> For centuries evolutionists like Darwin
> believed that 'the cell is merely a blob
> of protoplasm' undifferentiated and simple.
Since it has been less that two centuries
since the theory of evolution even existed,
Liarboi BroilJAB is caught in his foolish lying.
> Now, we know that 'even the simplest
> cell' is a factory of machinery imminently
> more complex than any machine Man
> has ever built. As science advances, it
> leaves superstitious fantasies, such as
Creationism, in the sewer.
<41552972-4f63-49c2...@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
BroilJAB <Design...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> For centuries evolutionists like Darwin
> believed that 'the cell is merely a blob
> of protoplasm' undifferentiated and simple.
Since it has been less that two centuries
since the theory of evolution even existed,
Liarboi BroilJAB is caught in his foolish lying.
> Now, we know that 'even the simplest
> cell' is a factory of machinery imminently
> more complex than any machine Man
> has ever built. As science advances, it
> leaves superstitious fantasies, such as
Creationism, in the sewer.
Immortalist
May 28, 2012, 1:20:38 PM5/28/12
to
On May 24, 10:15 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> In article
> <06de99b0-e678-4d66-8493-538ca6333...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
>
> Evolution , being a scientific theory,
> is much more important than a mere fact.
>
> It is, in fact, a summary of millions of facts in the form of a
> scientific theory, into which those millions of facts fit together,
> like all other scientific theories
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and
verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which
is intended to explain or interpret facts....
Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact Scholars and clinical
researchers in both the social and natural sciences have forwarded
numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature
of scientific fact. Some pertinent issues raised by this inquiry
include: the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized
and accepted as such; whether and to what extent "fact" and
"theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and
separable from one another; to what extent are "facts" influenced by
the mere act of observation; and to what extent are factual
conclusions influenced by history and consensus, rather than a
strictly systematic methodology.
Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars
assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas
Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and
how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age
of fossils is based on radiocarbon dating which is justified by
reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than
a Bernoulli process). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited
with the methodological position known as operationalism, which
asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily
defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
> In article
> <06de99b0-e678-4d66-8493-538ca6333...@v24g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>,
> Nonsense from Liarboi Broiljab as usual.
>
> Evolution , being a scientific theory,
> is much more important than a mere fact.
>
> It is, in fact, a summary of millions of facts in the form of a
> scientific theory, into which those millions of facts fit together,
> like all other scientific theories
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and
verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which
is intended to explain or interpret facts....
Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact Scholars and clinical
researchers in both the social and natural sciences have forwarded
numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature
of scientific fact. Some pertinent issues raised by this inquiry
include: the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized
and accepted as such; whether and to what extent "fact" and
"theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and
separable from one another; to what extent are "facts" influenced by
the mere act of observation; and to what extent are factual
conclusions influenced by history and consensus, rather than a
strictly systematic methodology.
Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars
assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas
Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and
how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age
of fossils is based on radiocarbon dating which is justified by
reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than
a Bernoulli process). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited
with the methodological position known as operationalism, which
asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily
defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
0 new messages