Outlaw meat production
Ivan
Bert & Kathie Robbins <brob...@erols.com> writes: >
> > >carrots - carotatoxin (nerve toxin)
> > >potatoes - solanine (spina bifida in fetuses, poisonous in
> > general)
> > >celery - psoralen (photosensitizer, carcinogen)
> > >okra - sterculic acid (poison)
> > >crucifers - goitrin (turns off your thyroid)
> > >mustard - allyl isothiocyanate (war gas)
> > >tomatoes - tomatine
> > >broccoli - benzpyrene (carcinogen)
> > >
>
> I thought I heard somewhere that broccoli has over a dozen hazardous
> poisons, hence, pregnant and/or nursing women are advised to avoid
> eating it. (George Bush was onto to something :) )
>
> And I'd like to add that 1/8 of a head of lettuce contains 10X more
> caffeic acid than 1 cup of coffee (_Science_, Vol. 258, Oct. 9, 1992)
Of course, none of this has anything to do with the original post,
which concerned the amount of suffering caused by those who create
animals for food, and kill 16 times the amount of plants just to
feed those animals, and then complain about the so-called damage
that our supposedly poorly educated youth are causing. However,
a greater percentage of youth (teens and college-age)
than their supposedly better-educated elders minimize this huge
suffering of animals and plants by not causing more animals to be
brought into this world. Note how I described the event: eating
animal roadkill does NOT cause more suffering than was already
caused. Whereas, buying tons of meat, not eating it,
and then dumping it into the garbage can, DOES cause violence and
pain and suffering and denial of freedom to animals and humans.
John
Wm James
On 15 Jul 1997 18:52:57 GMT, Ivan <jnah...@sprynet.com> wrote:
I, like my canine teeth. The evolved for a reason.
When you convince all the other preditors to be nice to their
would be prey, then talk to me about it.
To blame food on the pitiful condition of the schools caused by
the left is not only backwards, it is fraud.
Perhaps some animal protien in your diet may help your brain to
process reality a little better.
William R. James
Scott Nudds
Wm James (sp...@here.not) wrote:
: To blame food on the pitiful condition of the schools caused by
: the left is not only backwards, it is fraud.
Are these the same schools that Ronnie - I'm brain dead - Reagan
attempted to convince that ketchup was a healthy substitute for a
vegetable? The same schools that the conservative right wishes to have
teach creation science?
I think they are. But please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
--
<---->
Charles Stuart
Scott Nudds wrote:
> Are these the same schools that Ronnie - I'm brain dead - Reagan
> attempted to convince that ketchup was a healthy substitute for a
> vegetable?
I read recently that ketchup - at least tomato ketchup - is as good as a
vegetable. The reason given is that the nutritional qualities of
tomatoes survive processing better than other fruit and vegetables. But
the article did not give the physical or biochemical reasons why. Does
anyone know what they are?
The fact that canned tomatoes and processed tomato products are
nutritious probably explains why I did not get malnourished as a
student. I lived off spaghetti Bolognese!
--
Charles E. T. Stuart
cha...@luna.co.uk
HAIRY HUMAN HOMEPAGE: http://www.luna.co.uk/~charles/
Genetic research into human body hair
Wm James
On 17 Jul 1997 10:37:34 GMT, af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott
Nudds) wrote:
:Wm James (sp...@here.not) wrote:
:: To blame food on the pitiful condition of the schools caused by
:: the left is not only backwards, it is fraud.
:
: Are these the same schools that Ronnie - I'm brain dead - Reagan
:attempted to convince that ketchup was a healthy substitute for a
:vegetable? The same schools that the conservative right wishes to have
:teach creation science?
:
: I think they are. But please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, You are correct. And just which of those two proposals were
ever enacted? I did not say that the republicans were not trying
to mold their nonsense into the schools, just that the left
succeeded in doing so a long time ago and still does.
William R. James
Steve Spence
the conservative right have never claimed that creation is science. but
they do point out the liberal left's mistake in claiming evolution is
science. Since neither was observed, neither can be claimed anything but
what they are, theories, and should both be taught as such.
--
Steve Spence
ssp...@sequeltech.com
Http://www.sequeltech.com
Steve...@worldnet.att.net
Http://www.areaairduct.com/spence
MSMVP, MSDN, ClubIE
BetaID# 254651
ICQ 2063316
____________________________________
Wm James wrote in article <33dd7d3c...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>...
Wm James
On Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:49:43 -0400, "Steve Spence"
<steve...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: the conservative right have never claimed that creation is science. but
:they do point out the liberal left's mistake in claiming evolution is
:science. Since neither was observed, neither can be claimed anything but
:what they are, theories, and should both be taught as such.
Few would ever call me a liberal, but you are very wrong on that.
Many things are not directly observable, but are testable in that
predictions made by the application of the scientific theories
are observable. Evolution has passed these tests repeatedly,
without question, and like all sciences, do not require the
intervention of the untestable supernatural powers to explain it.
To compare science to superstition is absurd.
:Steve Spence
William R. James
Steve Spence
i disagree that evolution has passed any tests, and that creation is
superstition.
--
Steve Spence
ssp...@sequeltech.com
Http://www.sequeltech.com
Steve...@worldnet.att.net
Http://www.areaairduct.com/spence
MSMVP, MSDN, ClubIE
BetaID# 254651
ICQ 2063316
For definitions, answers, and how to - http://www.whatis.com
____________________________________
Wm James wrote in article <33d62d57...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>...
David Bostwick
In article <33d62d57...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not
says...
[snip]
>Evolution has passed these tests repeatedly,
>without question, and like all sciences, do not require the
>intervention of the untestable supernatural powers to explain it.
At the risk of starting The Debate, where did the original precursors of the
universe come from? Both creationists and evolutionists accept things by
faith. And if I recall correctly, evolutionary theory has been modified
several times, and new discoveries require regular reevaluation of current
ideas. Even some of the Sojourner data has surprised people, and theories
of Mars' beginnings may need changing.
Steven Hales
David Bostwick wrote:
I recall having these types of conversations as a teenager and college
student usually associated with an illegal substance. However, since
I've volunteered to reply to you, here goes. Faith and Absolute
Knowledge. You could set them up as a continuum. Or you could say that
they are reflections of eachother a very 19th century idea. Let's see.
When Darwin finally put pen to paper and published "The Origin of
Species" (before Wallace could beat him to it) there was a certain
discomfiting knowledge that Man was an animal like other animals and
that species were not created immutable. This is a notion that can be
traced from Aristotle to Bacon to Goethe. There was much anticipation
to Darwin's revolution and much intellectual foundation for its
acceptance by scientists and thinkers.
The basic ideas that Darwin expressed of "Struggle for Life and as a
consequence to Natural Selection entailing the Divergence of Character
and Extinction of less-improved forms" is as far as I know still
standing 138 years after the publication of Origin of Species. In fact
Darwin closes his great work with a poetic phrase: "There is grandeur
in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally
breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst
this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity,
from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being evolved." This was not gratuitous on
the part of Darwin for he entered Christ College in 1827 in preparation
to entering the Church.
So you can see how Darwin's ideas expanded his notion of Faith and made
creation a wonderous thing, a thing that was changing and had changed
wonderfully, and he had cracked the Creator's code. Such was much
thinking at this time, that Man's quest for knowledge brought him closer
to God.
Though you are correct that new knowledge is not ignored and does change
our theories but fundamental theories such as Darwin's have stood up.
The geologic record was most incomplete in Darwin's day and since then
has been filled out enormously and not one shred of evidence has been
uncovered from the entire geologic record that would refute the theory
of evolution. So much proof has been assembled that we can now
comfortably call evolution a fact.
Certainlly from a genetic point of view we have similarities with Corn.
The similarities between genetic material of species points to a common
anscestor for all life. As to the evolution of cell walls and celluar
processes the exact mechanisms are as yet unknown, for we haven't yet
mimicked evolution in action. I think in reality it was billions or
trillions of near misses in the primordial past before there was life
and as such life is a statistical anomaly. We just can't run a billion
iterations in a test tube to test this theory. So instead of a Creator,
we have today, Statistics. Oh, well, progress, I guess.
Regards,
Steve
Andreas Matern
In article <33CE89...@luna.co.uk>, cha...@luna.co.uk wrote:
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> > Are these the same schools that Ronnie - I'm brain dead - Reagan
> > attempted to convince that ketchup was a healthy substitute for a
> > vegetable?
>
> I read recently that ketchup - at least tomato ketchup - is as good as a
> vegetable. The reason given is that the nutritional qualities of
> tomatoes survive processing better than other fruit and vegetables. But
> the article did not give the physical or biochemical reasons why. Does
> anyone know what they are?
>
> The fact that canned tomatoes and processed tomato products are
> nutritious probably explains why I did not get malnourished as a
> student. I lived off spaghetti Bolognese!
> --
> Charles E. T. Stuart
> cha...@luna.co.uk
> HAIRY HUMAN HOMEPAGE: http://www.luna.co.uk/~charles/
> Genetic research into human body hair
Well, from what I've read, the average american receives most of their
dietary lycopene from: tomato ketchup, spaghetti sauce, or tomato soup.
For some (as yet unknown reason) lycopene is absorbed better into the body
in tomato sauce or processed tomatoes than in fresh tomatoes. (!!!) A
recent study by Dr. Edward Giovannucci (Harvard Medical School) showed
that processed tomatoes were more strongly beneficial for preventing
prostate canceer. Another study by Dr. Giovannucci showed that tomato
sauce was the strongest predictorate of lycopene in the blood. To absorb
lycopene you require a bit of oil (or fat), and tomato sauce (for
spaghetti or pizza or what have you) may be ideal for this absorption.
(speculation - no data)
Lycopene, BTW, is the most potent antioxidant among carotenoids -- it's
the pigment that makes tomatoes (and other vegetables) red and probably
evolved to protect the seeds within the fruits from the sun (UV).
Reference: "Tomatoes and Health". Transcript of Tomato Health Panel.
Hosted by the California Tomato Growers Association, Inc. February 6,
1997. Sacramento, California.
--
Andreas Matern
al...@cornell.edu
266 Emerson Hall
Dept of Plant Breeding and Biometry
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/alm13/
Tom Davis
In article <5r2gns$d...@smash.gatech.edu>, david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) writes:
|> In article <33d62d57...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not
|> says...
|>
|> >without question, and like all sciences, do not require the
|> >intervention of the untestable supernatural powers to explain it.
|>
|> At the risk of starting The Debate, where did the original precursors of the
|> universe come from? Both creationists and evolutionists accept things by
|> faith. And if I recall correctly, evolutionary theory has been modified
|> several times, and new discoveries require regular reevaluation of current
|> ideas. Even some of the Sojourner data has surprised people, and theories
|> of Mars' beginnings may need changing.
That's the difference between creationists and evolutionists. The
evolutionists are scientists who know that their theories may not be
correct and who are willing to modify the theories as more information
comes to light.
In 1859 with the publication of O. of S., Darwin's theory came amazingly
close (considering what he knew) to what's currently believed. But he
was clearly wrong about some things -- his model for inheritance, for
example, was pretty bad. Over the last 138 years, the theory has been
modified many times and in almost all cases has become a stronger theory
as a result.
Creationists, however, KNOW the answer. The earth was created in 4004
BC, and no new species have arisen since then. No matter what evidence
turns up, whether it be geological, paleontological, biological, or
astronomical that contradicts this fact, the creation theory remains
true because the Bible says so. A creationist cannot modify his
theory; he's only allowed to modify the facts :^)
Sure, there are things that aren't known about the origin of the
universe -- maybe it was always there (whatever "always" means when the
concept of time doesn't make sense before the big bang), maybe
God created it, or maybe it was created by the all-powerful invisible
pink unicorn that lives in my basement. But the unicorn theory is also
unsatisfying; who created the invisible pink unicorn?
You may say that I have "faith" in the scientific method. I don't
believe that's true; it's just that in my experience, things to seem to
be explainable in terms of laws. I've got millions of pieces of
evidence that support this view. But if, starting tomorrow, heavy
objects started falling into the sky and scrambled eggs began to
unscramble themselves to become whole again, I'd begin to reevaluate my
view of the universe.
Steven Schimmrich
Tom Davis (da...@bedlam.engr.sgi.com) wrote:
[snip]
: That's the difference between creationists and evolutionists. The
: evolutionists are scientists who know that their theories may not be
: correct and who are willing to modify the theories as more information
: comes to light.
[snip]
: Creationists, however, KNOW the answer. The earth was created in 4004
: BC, and no new species have arisen since then. No matter what evidence
: turns up, whether it be geological, paleontological, biological, or
: astronomical that contradicts this fact, the creation theory remains
: true because the Bible says so. A creationist cannot modify his
: theory; he's only allowed to modify the facts :^)
Ahem, perhaps you're painting with too broad a brush here...
The terms "creationist" and "evolutionist" are rather simplistic and
using them forces the issue to be much more polarized than it really is.
If you used the terms "young-earth creationists" or Biblical-literalist
creationists" I would have ignored this but, like it or not, all orthodox
Christian believers (such as myself) believe that "God created the Heavens
and the Earth." Some of us believing Christians even teach evolutionary
theory in the science classroom (it is, after all, the best NATURALISTIC
explanation we have for the origin and diversity of life on this planet).
There are far more Christians, who believe God to be the Creator, and who
teach and/or practive science (and reject the nonsense expounded by the
young-earth creationists) than you might imagine.
- Steve.
--
Steven H. Schimmrich KB9LCG s-s...@uiuc.edu
Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246
http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Fides quaerens intellectum
William R. Penrose
In article <5r2q03$loi$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> s-s...@students.uiuc.edu (Steven Schimmrich) writes:
> The terms "creationist" and "evolutionist" are rather simplistic and
>using them forces the issue to be much more polarized than it really is.
If you go over and listen in to sci.misc for a while, you will see in the
permanent debate on evolution that there is no room for a middle ground. Like
abortion, this is one debate that automatically forces you to
extremes. If you are a moderate, you are the enemy of both sides. Like US
national politics.
(Cross-post addresses to those whiners in geology removed.)
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, President, Custom Sensor Solutions, Inc.
526 West Franklin Avenue, Naperville IL 60540, USA
630-548-3548, fax 630-369-9618, email wpen...@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of contract R&D and gas sensor-based product
development to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************
Eugene A. Calame
On 22 Jul 1997 14:39:56 GMT, david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu
(David Bostwick) wrote:
>In article <33d62d57...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not
>says...
>
>[snip]
>
>>Evolution has passed these tests repeatedly,
>>without question, and like all sciences, do not require the
>>intervention of the untestable supernatural powers to explain it.
Is this really a subject for the sci.geology newsgroup?
Seems it has been flooded by cross post that are more approbate for
sci.environment and other groups lately.
Eugene A. Calame eaca...@swbell.net
Austin, Texas USA
David Starr
David Bostwick wrote:
>
> In article <33d62d57...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not
> says...
>
> [snip]
>
> >Evolution has passed these tests repeatedly,
> >without question, and like all sciences, do not require the
> >intervention of the untestable supernatural powers to explain it.
>
> universe come from? Both creationists and evolutionists accept things by
> faith. And if I recall correctly, evolutionary theory has been modified
> several times, and new discoveries require regular reevaluation of current
> ideas. Even some of the Sojourner data has surprised people, and theories
> of Mars' beginnings may need changing.
That's the beauty of science...theories are always changing, moving
closer and closer to the truth.
-David-
none
>In article <33d62d57...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com>, sp...@here.not
>says...
>
>[snip]
>
>>Evolution has passed these tests repeatedly,
>>without question, and like all sciences, do not require the
>>intervention of the untestable supernatural powers to explain it.
>
>At the risk of starting The Debate, where did the original precursors of the
>universe come from?
Scientifically speaking, who cares?
It is beyond our ability to measure what preceded the origin of the
universe, so the discussion of that concept is irrelevant.
>Both creationists and evolutionists accept things by
>faith.
If you are asserting that creation and evolution are equivalent, then
please cite non-biblical evidence to support your position.
Negative evidence will not be accepted.
>And if I recall correctly, evolutionary theory has been modified
>several times, and new discoveries require regular reevaluation of current
>ideas.
That's how science works.
Unfortunately, creation has never been modified to meet current
evidence.
>Even some of the Sojourner data has surprised people, and theories
>of Mars' beginnings may need changing.
So what?
The level of computational power per square foot has changed in the
last 40 years.
Does that mean your current computer doesn't work?
MD Sweeney
Research Scientist
Applied Geology and Geochemistry
Fred McGalliard
Dear Steven Hales. A well prepared letter, but a few points need
discussion.
>Man was an animal like other animals and
> that species were not created immutable.
It is still today an interesting question just what actually seperates
lowly man from the most majestic animal. Perhaps less than we would
wish, but certainly more than we can now understand.
While it appears that the species are not immutable, it remains to be
shown just how mutable they are, and by what process such mutation is
possible.
you said
> ... not one shred of evidence has been
> uncovered from the entire geologic record that would refute the theory
> of evolution. So much proof has been assembled that we can now
> comfortably call evolution a fact.
I am sorry. This simply does not hold up. The theory of evolution is
much more than simply the observation that species have changed with
time. It is the claim that mutation has led, by random walk processes,
without artificial direction, extratrestrial (not necessarily
intellegent) intervention, bizar unnamed processes, or miracle, to all
the variations we see, up to man's interference. While there are a few
really good examples that certainly strongly suggest this process, there
are a number of really intractable problems that make this a statment of
faith rather than fact. That the record does not refute evolution is
mostly due to the fact that evolutionary theory is wholy inadequate
today to develop a conclusion that can be tested by examining the
record. For example, we have presumed that human intellegence gave us
some unique advantage over our predecessors that allowed us to flourish
while they died out. Examining human behavior suggests that our
intellegence gets us in nearly as much trouble as it gets us out of.
While we may be the most successful predator, we are lousy at living
within our means, and at living at peace with our neighbors. Perhaps our
success in the short term is like the algae bloom, a success carrying
it's own destruction. Certainly not something to congratulate ourselves
over.
You also said
> Certainlly from a genetic point of view we have similarities with Corn.
> The similarities between genetic material of species points to a common
> anscestor for all life.
Please remember that we do not have enough experience with interstellar
life to know if the similarities we see are required, the only way the
organism can be created, or a result of a common herritage. Far more
interesting is the common association of certain unexpressed genetic
code elements and cell structures which don't appear to be required to
make the cell what it is. While these do seem to support some common
herritage issues, their use requires a really thorough understanding of
cell chemestry.
As for starting a cell by a trillion near misses, I think that estimate
is at least a trillion times too small. Consider that you need to create
a self replicating code something like a naked virus, wrap it in some
primitive cell wall, and then get both of them to divide at the same
time, just for starters. While this aparently did not take more than a
few billion years, the pace of evolution for the first few billion years
after that, up to the precambrium explosion (I think), was pretty
liesurely. Do you have any idea how such rapid evolution of a large
number of seperate groups could exist and yet today we actually observe
a loss of species variations? Seems like every species we wipe out
should be replaced by 3 new ones in just a few hundred years. Where are
they?
> We just can't run a billion
> iterations in a test tube to test this theory.
Every batch of beer argues for the (already thoroughly disproved) theory
that species are imutable and that evolution can't be true. I think our
theory is just not up to describing reality yet.
none
On 22 Jul 1997 17:17:55 GMT, s-s...@students.uiuc.edu (Steven
Schimmrich) wrote:
> If you used the terms "young-earth creationists" or Biblical-literalist
>creationists" I would have ignored this but, like it or not, all orthodox
>Christian believers (such as myself) believe that "God created the Heavens
>and the Earth." Some of us believing Christians even teach evolutionary
>theory in the science classroom (it is, after all, the best NATURALISTIC
>explanation we have for the origin and diversity of life on this planet).
>There are far more Christians, who believe God to be the Creator, and who
>teach and/or practive science (and reject the nonsense expounded by the
>young-earth creationists) than you might imagine.
So where do old-earth creationist Christians diverge from Institute
for Creation Research?
The unfortunate thing about the creation-evolution debate is that the
most vocal opponents to evolutionary biology and geologic data
regarding the age of the earth tend to be the young-earth proponents.
Steven Hales
Fred McGalliard wrote:
> Dear Steven Hales. A well prepared letter, but a few points need
> discussion.
> >Man was an animal like other animals and
> > that species were not created immutable.
>
> It is still today an interesting question just what actually seperates
>
> lowly man from the most majestic animal. Perhaps less than we would
> wish, but certainly more than we can now understand.
> While it appears that the species are not immutable, it remains to be
> shown just how mutable they are, and by what process such mutation is
> possible.
I cannot argue on the finer points of mutations their frequency I know
is small and that they are almost always disastorous. All that I can
say is that evolution is a local phenomenon and evidence of mutation and
transitions in the fossil record are abundant. Inference of transition
through mutation is as powerful as understanding the exact process of
transition. When you consider that a minor gene change produces
terminal vellum in humans and fur on my cat you kind of sit up and take
notice that evolution is not as surprising or as mysterious as one might
think. Darwin made some pertinent remarks on the pedicellariae of
starfishes and the spines of sea urchins. He thought that the
pedicelllariae of the starfish were modified spines. The genetic
mechanism was unknown to him but an inference based upon homology of two
different structures on two different species shows that Darwin
understood that there was an underlying mechanism involved though he
couldn't tell us what it was except to say modifications in a
transitional form leading to gradations in two different directions.
Gradations of forms from a common ancestor are present today; it is
through our knowledge of genetics we can better quantify the gradations
of form more precisely from the common ancestor than Darwin could.
>
>
> you said
> > ... not one shred of evidence has been
> > uncovered from the entire geologic record that would refute the
> theory
> > of evolution. So much proof has been assembled that we can now
> > comfortably call evolution a fact.
>
> I am sorry. This simply does not hold up. The theory of evolution is
> much more than simply the observation that species have changed with
> time. It is the claim that mutation has led, by random walk processes,
>
> without artificial direction, extratrestrial (not necessarily
> intellegent) intervention, bizar unnamed processes, or miracle, to all
>
> the variations we see, up to man's interference. While there are a few
>
> really good examples that certainly strongly suggest this process,
> there
> are a number of really intractable problems that make this a statment
> of
> faith rather than fact. That the record does not refute evolution is
> mostly due to the fact that evolutionary theory is wholy inadequate
> today to develop a conclusion that can be tested by examining the
> record.
This sounds like a recapitulation of Darwin's own displeasure with his
theory except the part about the random walk. In fact chapters 6 and 7
of Origin go into quite a bit of detail on this. The only way a science
of natural selection works is by studying adaptation methodically
without relying on any explanations that are unrelated to individual or
group survival. Working backwards from here we could examine the fossil
record but before we do we must disabuse ourselves of the notion of
natural selection being a process toward perfection and simply keep the
principles of adaptation in mind. We know the genetic material changed
how it changed is less important.
> For example, we have presumed that human intellegence gave us
> some unique advantage over our predecessors that allowed us to
> flourish
> while they died out. Examining human behavior suggests that our
> intellegence gets us in nearly as much trouble as it gets us out of.
> While we may be the most successful predator, we are lousy at living
> within our means, and at living at peace with our neighbors. Perhaps
> our
> success in the short term is like the algae bloom, a success carrying
> it's own destruction. Certainly not something to congratulate
> ourselves
> over.
You are confusing cultural evolution with natural selection. Man has
perhaps temporarily removed himself from the process of natural
selection through cultural structures. And if we are to believe many
doomsayers it is very temporary indeed.
>
>
> You also said
> > Certainlly from a genetic point of view we have similarities with
> Corn.
> > The similarities between genetic material of species points to a
> common
> > anscestor for all life.
>
> Please remember that we do not have enough experience with
> interstellar
> life to know if the similarities we see are required, the only way the
>
> organism can be created, or a result of a common herritage. Far more
> interesting is the common association of certain unexpressed genetic
> code elements and cell structures which don't appear to be required to
>
> make the cell what it is. While these do seem to support some common
> herritage issues, their use requires a really thorough understanding
> of
> cell chemestry.
Darwin had a bit to say on this that not all inherited characteristics
were the result of natural selection. They are just present, not
harming or aiding the species in the process of natural selection.
Careful observation of function for the individual can be fruitful into
insights regarding adaptation and if you reach failure there move on to
the group and find reasons there.
If on the other hand you are referring to large chunks of the genetic
code that are thought to be "fillers" with no purpose. I don't know I
refer you to the Human Genome project. They're the ones cataloguing all
this filler or noise as well as the data. Perhaps something will come
of it perhaps not.
>
>
> As for starting a cell by a trillion near misses, I think that
> estimate
> is at least a trillion times too small. Consider that you need to
> create
> a self replicating code something like a naked virus, wrap it in some
> primitive cell wall, and then get both of them to divide at the same
> time, just for starters. While this aparently did not take more than a
>
> few billion years, the pace of evolution for the first few billion
> years
> after that, up to the precambrium explosion (I think), was pretty
> liesurely. Do you have any idea how such rapid evolution of a large
> number of seperate groups could exist and yet today we actually
> observe
> a loss of species variations? Seems like every species we wipe out
> should be replaced by 3 new ones in just a few hundred years. Where
> are
> they?
3 new ones in a few hundred years? Now I have followed you up to this
point this is clearly not possible. Extinction before man was perhaps a
random event and not part of natural selection but man's modification of
habitat brings this on and nothing else.
>
>
> > We just can't run a billion
> > iterations in a test tube to test this theory.
>
> Every batch of beer argues for the (already thoroughly disproved)
> theory
> that species are imutable and that evolution can't be true. I think
> our
> theory is just not up to describing reality yet.
Hey drink the beer and forget about it. :-) But how have we changed in
our views of natural selection since Darwin? We now dismiss the notions
of progress, of adaptation of populations and of group selection. This
does not undermine Origin it points out errors in it. Origin still
stands the test of time.
Regards,
Steve
none
>While there are a few really good examples that certainly strongly
>suggest this process, there are a number of really intractable problems
>that make this a statment of faith rather than fact.
^^^ ^^^
Then there is no distiction for either?
I have problems with that statement since it tends to denegrate both
science and religion with one broad stroke.
Science is a process bound by philosophy. There is plenty of
intuition and speculation that threads through the conclusions drawn
from it, but it relies on observation and experimentation. Where
there is a lack of hard evidence, Occam's Razor drives us to the
simplest theory to explain the gaps. There is, in my mind, no faith
required. If anything, skepticism dominates.
Religion is a philosophy bound in dogmatic expresssion. There is no
need to look any further for evidence than in the religious scriptures
that support it. Faith, in my opinion (and many of my religious
friends and colleagues - anectodal evidence, I'll admit), is the
belief that what is taught is true, sometimes IN SPITE of what is
physically known. I cannot think of one of the *dominant* religions
in the world that doesn't require some form of adherence to a belief
that would be valid even if information were provided to the contrary.
That is - once again, in my opinion - what makes each unique and
irreconcilably separate from each other.
Scott Nudds
Steve Spence (steve...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: i disagree that evolution has passed any tests, and that creation is
: superstition.
Evidence for evolution in disease causing microbes is well established.
Evidence of evolution in higher organisms is less well established but
available.
There is <NO> evidence for creation.
Webmaster
Tom Davis wrote:
> [....]
> Sure, there are things that aren't known about the origin of the
> universe -- maybe it was always there (whatever "always" means when
> the
> concept of time doesn't make sense before the big bang), maybe
> God created it, or maybe it was created by the all-powerful invisible
> pink unicorn that lives in my basement. But the unicorn theory is
> also
> unsatisfying; who created the invisible pink unicorn?
>
> You may say that I have "faith" in the scientific method. I don't
> believe that's true; it's just that in my experience, things to seem
> to
> be explainable in terms of laws. I've got millions of pieces of
> evidence that support this view. But if, starting tomorrow, heavy
> objects started falling into the sky and scrambled eggs began to
> unscramble themselves to become whole again, I'd begin to reevaluate
> my
> view of the universe.
I Recall the difference between HOW and WHY.
Nothing in science can be ultimately proven. All science has its
foundation in some principles and postulates that cannot be proven
inside the developed theory from them (recursive demonstrations):
i.e.1. you cannot prove inside Relativity that the speed of light is the
ultimate speed, because all the theory is developed under this, without
proof, principle.
i.e.2. you cannot prove the simultaneity of events in Classical
mechanics (Newton) because all the theory is developed under this
(implicit and without proof) principle. Notice that Relativity is
against this principle.
i.e.3 No thermodynamic principle can be proved inside thermodynamics.
and so on.....
i.e.n. Is the uncertainty principle an Universal Truth, or is a Human or
Local World limitation?
i.e.n+1 Is there someone out there that knows what exactly TIME is?
I can agree that many of the principles can be accepted (faith) because
they seem 'logic' or our human or local world limitations doesn't allow
us to refuse them yet, but others are more difficult (the ultimate speed
of light).
A new theory is approved when it is accepted by the scientific
community, so scientists are putting their faith to the 'democracy' of
the scientific community (a comfortable anthropocentric position) always
limited by the Human errors (recall the Global worries discussions, peer
review system ....).
Also one must be careful with the axioms needed to develop theories:
Why a distance must be a real positive number?
Why an energy must be a real number?
Why measuring operators must be Hermitian (or antihermitian or normal)?
Only because their eigenvalues are real numbers (or their eigenfunctions
ortonormal) ??
Are all this axioms (I agree again that they are easily acceptable)
imposed by the Human mind limitations?
and, ... what about chaos?
Perhaps science matters are answering HOW things go and philosophy
matters (anthropocentric philosophy or religion, say God or pink
Unicorns) are answering WHY things are.
I also agree that the difference between HOW and WHY is difficult to
establish, and that is difficult to philosophers to make science but is
easy to scientist to make philosophy. In fact accepting that science can
explain all (HOW and WHY) is a philosophic position (look at
determinism, positivism, realism, the Atkins book about the Universe
creation ....) that uses faith as religion does. Remember the
philosophic quantum debate.
Perhaps the main difference is that the first projects its faith to the
Humans (with all their limitations, but a comfortable position because
it looks our local universe from inside, so it is a recursive position?
i.e. Impossibility of before-Big-Bang observations) and the second to
something more difficult to handle (but sometimes less limited). I mean
that consciously or not you need to use once your faith, where? is up to
you, but surely there is no need to use it twice.
Hope it helps to think a little.
Greetings from Catalonia
Steven Schimmrich
none (md_sw...@ccmail.pnl.gov) wrote>
> On 22 Jul 1997 17>17>55 GMT, s-s...@students.uiuc.edu (Steven
> Schimmrich) wrote>
>
>> If you used the terms "young-earth creationists" or Biblical-literalist
>> creationists" I would have ignored this but, like it or not, all orthodox
>> Christian believers (such as myself) believe that "God created the Heavens
>> and the Earth." Some of us believing Christians even teach evolutionary
>> theory in the science classroom (it is, after all, the best NATURALISTIC
>> explanation we have for the origin and diversity of life on this planet).
>> There are far more Christians, who believe God to be the Creator, and who
>> teach and/or practive science (and reject the nonsense expounded by the
>> young-earth creationists) than you might imagine.
>
> So where do old-earth creationist Christians diverge from Institute
> for Creation Research?
That depends. Those who call themselves "old-earth creationists" (I do
not) often oppose evolutionary theory as well.
Other Christians, such as myself, who would probably fit the label
"theistic evolutionist" better (although, quite honestly, I dislike such
labels), have the same problems with the ICR that you do. I've been very
active in opposing young-earth creationist junk science, even contributing
to the Talk Origins archives.
> The unfortunate thing about the creation-evolution debate is that the
> most vocal opponents to evolutionary biology and geologic data
> regarding the age of the earth tend to be the young-earth proponents.
That's true. It's also unfortunate that the most vocal proponents of
evolutionary theory are atheists who harbor a strong dislike of Christianity
(Richard Dawkins springs to mind). It's not only young-earth creationists
who confuse philosophical ideas (i.e. Naturalism) with science.
Harry H Conover
G (gr...@foo.icanect.net) wrote:
:
: Second, I agree that both "theories" should be taught in school. Let the
: children decide for themselves. I think they will prove to be a lot more
: intelligent than most people would think. Show them creationism and all the
: "evidence" in favor of it. Then show the evolution and all its evidence. The
: oucome will be that the myth of creationism will finally dissappear.
:
: The only way to rid ourselves of foolish "theories" is to expose it alongside
: rival theories, show the evidence for both sides, and let people decide for
: themselves. The younger people are, the easier it will
: be for them to make the more sensible choice, because there hasn't been enough
: time to brainwash them with religious mumbo-jumbo yet.
Excellent idea, however I would oppose it being put into practice. After
all, what distinguishes creationism from any religious dogma, superstition,
and/or pseudo-science. What's the difference between creationism, witchcraft,
alchemy, astrology, palmistry, and any other primitive belief.
Seems to me that if you open the door to teaching any one, you introduce
the possibility of having to cover them all. With the limited resources
available for education, I believe it far more beneficial to introduce
students to a knowledge of 'what is' rather than an open-ended list of
'what is not.'
Harry C.
crs
Steve Spence doesn't understand science very well if he thinks evolution hasn't "passed any
tests." The truth is that the theory of evolution has a large and growing body of data
supporting it. In addition to the fossil record, which includes intermediate forms, for
many types of creatures such as bacteria, snails, horses and even humans, we know that
evolution - including speciation - is going on even in our own time.
The evolution of the North American leopard frog into two seperate species that withstand
different climates (e.g. Vermont and Mexico) is an excellent example. The salient marker
of speciation in this case is that the Mexican and Vermont varieties can no longer
interbreed, even though they have meny characteristics in common. These are not different
races, they are different species. Please don't reply with the blather about "a frog is
still a frog." If you do, you will look like a dope.
Now I have a question for all you dyed-in-the-wool creationites out there. What data -
what evidence will convince you to abandon your misplaced literalist faith in the pleasent
poetry of Genesis? If your tactic is to come to your conclusion first and look for
rhetorical inconsistancies in competing theories, you are not practicing science. There is
not one scintilla of evidence supporting creationism and yet you want to teach it in the
schools as another "equivalent theory." Where is your honesty?
Chuck Szmanda
chu...@ultranet.com
wetboy
Dishonest? I think most creationists are not dishonest. They
are just so clueless that they don't have any clue they
are clueless. I've often attributed it to dishonesty myself,
but I've come to believe that creationists, in the area of
"creationism" anyway, are incapable of rationality.
-- Wetboy
Dwayne King
Fred McGalliard wrote:
> I am sorry. This simply does not hold up. The theory of evolution is
> much more than simply the observation that species have changed with
> time. It is the claim that mutation has led, by random walk processes,
> without artificial direction, extratrestrial (not necessarily
> intellegent) intervention, bizar unnamed processes, or miracle, to all
> the variations we see, up to man's interference.
where did you this idea? It doesn't even come close to describing
evolution. Should I assume you were trying to describe evolution through
natural selection? Even so, you are still wrong. Take for instance your
claim hat extratrestrial intervention isn't an agent of evolution (or
natural selection), I don't know that you've been following the mass
extinction discussions, but a popular hypothesis for the reason for the
die-offs if the dinosaurs was due to an extratrestrial body going thud
on the side of the earth. Flawed or not, this is a hypothesis being
studied that describes selection pressure from an extratrestrial source.
> While there are a few
> really good examples that certainly strongly suggest this process, there
> are a number of really intractable problems that make this a statment of
> faith rather than fact. That the record does not refute evolution is
> mostly due to the fact that evolutionary theory is wholy inadequate
> today to develop a conclusion that can be tested by examining the
> record. For example, we have presumed that human intellegence gave us
> some unique advantage over our predecessors that allowed us to flourish
> while they died out.
This may be wrong also, but the term "they is too vauge to offer a
response.
> Examining human behavior suggests that our
> intellegence gets us in nearly as much trouble as it gets us out of.
> While we may be the most successful predator,
Are we?
> we are lousy at living
> within our means, and at living at peace with our neighbors. Perhaps our
> success in the short term is like the algae bloom, a success carrying
> it's own destruction. Certainly not something to congratulate ourselves
> over.
>
I don't know where to begin explaining what's wrong with this passage.
You should check into behavioral ecology a little.
> As for starting a cell by a trillion near misses, I think that estimate
> is at least a trillion times too small. Consider that you need to create
> a self replicating code something like a naked virus, wrap it in some
> primitive cell wall, and then get both of them to divide at the same
> time, just for starters.
Seems more likely that you would start with some short chain amino
acids, no?
> Do you have any idea how such rapid evolution of a large
> number of seperate groups could exist and yet today we actually observe
> a loss of species variations? Seems like every species we wipe out
> should be replaced by 3 new ones in just a few hundred years. Where are
> they?
What are you talking about? I don't even pretend to even remotly
understand what your logic (?) is here.
> Every batch of beer argues for the (already thoroughly disproved) theory
> that species are imutable and that evolution can't be true.
Again, what are you talking about?
I hope you don't mind me saying so, but you don't seem to know much of
anything about evolution and its agents. Before you start arguing
against something, you might want to take a little while to look into
it. If nothing else, an informed argument is mor effective.
Frank Harrison
"Steve Spence" <steve...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> the conservative right have never claimed that creation is science. but
> they do point out the liberal left's mistake in claiming evolution is
> science. Since neither was observed, neither can be claimed anything but
> what they are, theories, and should both be taught as such.
>
>
There is a great deal of physical evidence which supports the theory
of evolution. Theories are what scientists use to attempt to explain physical
phenomena. To say that "because it's a theory, it isn't science" is rubbish.
Everything that we now regard as scientific law was, at one time, theory.
What physical evidence is there to support the theory of creation?
The creationists I have spoken with invariably claim that "It's true
because it says so in Genesis", and they dismiss the physical evidence
which supports the theory of evolution with "God created all of that stuff
you evolutionists regard as physical evidence at the same time he created
the earth, as a test of faith for the believers." That is NOT science,
that is religeous dogma which has no business being taught in the schools.
Creationism is not supported by the physical evidence. Evolution is, and
until someone come along with a theory that does a better job of it,
evolution will be regarded by the scientific community as the correct
explanation, and it will be taught as such in the schools.
Frank Harrison
Harry H Conover
William R. Penrose (wpen...@interaccess.com) wrote:
:
: If you go over and listen in to sci.misc for a while, you will see in the
: Like abortion, this is one debate that automatically forces you to
: extremes. If you are a moderate, you are the enemy of both sides.
: Like US national politics.
This seems to be the nature of any discourse between 'true believers'
of opposite persuasions in any field -- polarized viewpoints.
Still, for me the arguments between the creationists and evolutionists
seem particularly bizarre, since the foundations of each concept to
not (at least to me) appear to conflict.
Creationism, at least as I understand it, has its foundations in
religious dogma (if that is the correct terminology). It accepts
for its basis that God created man in the image of God, and that
the form of man is largely immutable. However, creationism (at
least to my knowledge) sets no constraints on the mechanism used
by God to create man (if you will, God's toolbox).
By contrast, the scientific concept of evolution provides a validated
mechanism for living organisms to develop in complexity from the
simple to sophisticated based on a rather straight-forward
concept (optimization of reproductive success statistics). While
it provides a mechanism fully capable of evolving man from the lower
life forms, it does not require that man have such origins -- it
merely reveals that this route is, by far, the most probable.
I suppose my viewpoint sets me in the middle of the road, and that
I'll be flamed by both sides. Still, I fail to see the conflict.
Creationism is a religious belief. Evolution is a scientific
concept based upon observation. Direct comparisions between
the two is not only pointless, but impossible.
Harry C.
mi...@wired2x.net
crs wrote:
>
> Scott Nudds wrote:
> >
> > Steve Spence (steve...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> > : i disagree that evolution has passed any tests, and that creation
William R. Penrose
>> Steve Spence (steve...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>> : i disagree that evolution has passed any tests, and that creation is
>> : superstition.
>>
>> Evidence for evolution in disease causing microbes is well established.
>> Evidence of evolution in higher organisms is less well established but
>> available.
>>
>> There is <NO> evidence for creation.
I know about the First Amendment and all that, but may I humbly suggest that
this brawl be taken over to sci..misc There you will find an endless supply
of screwballs from all over the world that love going over this argument again
and again and again and again...
We're trying to get some chemistry done here.
Bye.
Gavin Whittaker
none (md_sw...@ccmail.pnl.gov) wrote:
: On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 19:43:34 GMT, Fred McGalliard
: <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
: >While there are a few really good examples that certainly strongly
: >suggest this process, there are a number of really intractable problems
: >that make this a statment of faith rather than fact.
: ^^^ ^^^
: Then there is no distiction for either?
: I have problems with that statement since it tends to denegrate both
: science and religion with one broad stroke.
: Science is a process bound by philosophy. There is plenty of
: intuition and speculation that threads through the conclusions drawn
: from it, but it relies on observation and experimentation. Where
: there is a lack of hard evidence, Occam's Razor drives us to the
: simplest theory to explain the gaps. There is, in my mind, no faith
: required. If anything, skepticism dominates.
Science also requires faith, I'm afraid. I'm not going to start
listing the assumptions of science, but let's just point out that even
at a basic level most physical sciences require one to believe that the
laws of physics are immutable over space and time. It requires one to
believe that what is observed is what is actually out there. By
invoking Occam's Razor, you aren't necessarily getting the truth, just
another act of faith - something you can get by with. The skepticism
you mention dominates some of the work, but very few scientists even
scratch the surface of the basic assumptions they make. Witness for
example, a discussion about proving the existence of atoms on here some
weeks ago. To some it was patently obvious that atoms existed, until
definitive proof was asked for.
: Religion is a philosophy bound in dogmatic expresssion. There is no
: need to look any further for evidence than in the religious scriptures
: that support it. Faith, in my opinion (and many of my religious
: friends and colleagues - anectodal evidence, I'll admit), is the
: belief that what is taught is true, sometimes IN SPITE of what is
: physically known.
I'm afraid that IMO, that's stupidity. It often arises from a
failure to look at the evidence for either the faith or the thing that
is physically known. Take, for example, the origin of this thread -
creationism vs. evolution. Quite frankly (as a Christian) I think the
creationists need to get a grip on themselves. The Creation narrative
is clearly poetic, and arises from contemporaneous 'scientific' creation
accounts. The Genesis account takes the 'latest' theory and says
'God did this, and this is why'. If it were written now, it would
probably read something like 'In the Beginning, God said 'let there be a
big bang...' It was never intended to be a scientific explanation of
creation and evolution, and it's stupidity to try to shoehorn it into
the evidence. Even the dullest literary student can spot the difference
in written style between this narrative and other more historical
accounts, although sadly, many creationists cannot.
Sadly, Wilberforce and the rest of the X-Club (not without some help
from some bishops) left this legacy of schism between science and
religion which is larger than is (IMO) actually warranted. Since both
the sides are now polarised, real debate doesn't seem to matter any more.
: I cannot think of one of the *dominant* religions
: in the world that doesn't require some form of adherence to a belief
: that would be valid even if information were provided to the contrary.
I don't know about 'require'. It ultimately depends on what your
boundary conditions are. If God exists, then miracles (for example) can
happen, and they are by definition are not reproducible. To believe
that a man can be raised from the dead in spite of the fact science
doesn't allow for it is not doublethink, it just requires that God
exists.
: That is - once again, in my opinion - what makes each unique and
: irreconcilably separate from each other.
If we make a characature of each, then yes, they are irreconcilably
separate. I personally don't recognise the pictures that are generally
painted of them though.
G
In sci.physics Steve Spence <steve...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> the conservative right have never claimed that creation is science. but
> they do point out the liberal left's mistake in claiming evolution is
> science. Since neither was observed, neither can be claimed anything but
> what they are, theories, and should both be taught as such.
First, I think you are confusing the word 'science' with the word 'fact'.
Science is all about coming up with and testing out new theories.
Second, I agree that both "theories" should be taught in school. Let the
children decide for themselves. I think they will prove to be a lot more
intelligent than most people would think. Show them creationism and all the
"evidence" in favor of it. Then show the evolution and all its evidence. The
oucome will be that the myth of creationism will finally dissappear.
The only way to rid ourselves of foolish "theories" is to expose it alongside
rival theories, show the evidence for both sides, and let people decide for
themselves. The younger people are, the easier it will
be for them to make the more sensible choice, because there hasn't been enough
time to brainwash them with religious mumbo-jumbo yet.
Tell you what. Next time somebody says to you "Evolution is ONLY a theory",
give them a lollipop.
$.02 deposited.
GregG
E.M. Ennis
Eugene A. Calame (eaca...@swbell.net) wrote:
: On 22 Jul 1997 14:39:56 GMT, david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu
: (David Bostwick) wrote:
: >>Evolution has passed these tests repeatedly,
: >>without question, and like all sciences, do not require the
: >>intervention of the untestable supernatural powers to explain it.
: Is this really a subject for the sci.geology newsgroup?
: Eugene A. Calame eaca...@swbell.net
: Austin, Texas USA
I don't see why not. Geology has played a dominant role in supporting
evolutionary theories.
-Erin...
--
=========================
Mr. Erin M. Ennis |
een...@zoo.uvm.edu |
Water Resources Major, |
Uni. of Vermont |
=========================
Wm James
: i disagree that evolution has passed any tests, and that creation is
:superstition.
Superstition, by definition, means beleif in the supernatural.
If you do not accept that the concept of a god is supernatural,
then be prepared to have your god subject to natural law. This
means that unless you can explain it's origion and power by the
laws of physics ( this means it cannot have any infinite
qualities) it can't exist.
As for evolution, it has passed ALL the tests.
William R. James
none
On 23 Jul 1997 12:39:35 GMT, s-s...@students.uiuc.edu (Steven
Schimmrich) wrote:
>none (md_sw...@ccmail.pnl.gov) wrote>
>> On 22 Jul 1997 17>17>55 GMT, s-s...@students.uiuc.edu (Steven
>> Schimmrich) wrote>
>>
>>> If you used the terms "young-earth creationists" or Biblical-literalist
>>> creationists" I would have ignored this but, like it or not, all orthodox
>>> Christian believers (such as myself) believe that "God created the Heavens
>>> and the Earth." Some of us believing Christians even teach evolutionary
>>> theory in the science classroom (it is, after all, the best NATURALISTIC
>>> explanation we have for the origin and diversity of life on this planet).
>>> There are far more Christians, who believe God to be the Creator, and who
>>> teach and/or practive science (and reject the nonsense expounded by the
>>> young-earth creationists) than you might imagine.
>>
>> So where do old-earth creationist Christians diverge from Institute
>> for Creation Research?
>
> That depends. Those who call themselves "old-earth creationists" (I do
>not) often oppose evolutionary theory as well.
So how do you reconcile those beliefs with yours? I understand that
there is a continuum of belief in the literal meaning of religious
scripture, but the camp that expresses *absolute* belief in _every_
word of the bible seem to me to possess no degree of rationalization
for the obvious contradictions in 2000+ year old texts.
It would seem that one would have to create a filter for what to
believe literally, and what not to believe literally, in a book like
the bible if it is possible to accept the miracles represented in said
text while at the same time believing that the earth is 4.5 billion
years old.
> Other Christians, such as myself, who would probably fit the label
>"theistic evolutionist" better (although, quite honestly, I dislike such
>labels), have the same problems with the ICR that you do. I've been very
>active in opposing young-earth creationist junk science, even contributing
>to the Talk Origins archives.
Which brings me to my next question: "Are the young-earth creationists
just an effective and vocal minority, or are they the majority?"
>> The unfortunate thing about the creation-evolution debate is that the
>> most vocal opponents to evolutionary biology and geologic data
>> regarding the age of the earth tend to be the young-earth proponents.
>
> That's true. It's also unfortunate that the most vocal proponents of
>evolutionary theory are atheists who harbor a strong dislike of Christianity
>(Richard Dawkins springs to mind).
Well, I am an atheist and a vocal proponent of evolutionary theory,
but I challenge you to prove I have a strong dislike of Christianity.
For me (and only for me), it would be irrational to harbor a dislike
of a particular theistic belief. I am an atheist, but only because I
reject supernatural events as an explaination for anything. To single
out Christianity for hatred is a pointless and futile exercise.
>It's not only young-earth creationists who confuse philosophical ideas
>(i.e. Naturalism) with science.
I can only hope that your point of view prevails among your fellow
theists. My objection to the young-earth/anti-evolutionary camp is
that they reject science while reaping all of the benefits of the
derived technology.
The tools scientists used to discover the foundation for computer
technology are the same as those that lead to our understanding of the
origin of the universe (a fact I'm certain you are aware of). I find
it extremely frustrating that a group of individuals can persuade the
public that one set of scientific facts are different from another
scientific facts, and that they should disregard what ever they object
to on a personal level because they've been told it is borne from some
"evil" intent.
Jim Carr
eaca...@swbell.net (Eugene A. Calame) writes:
>
>Is this really a subject for the sci.geology newsgroup?
It is a subject that should concern geologists (and all other
scientists) because their subjects are also part of the agenda
of the "creation scientists". For example, in February 1997
the Executive Board of the American Physical Society voted to
reaffirm its November 1981 position strongly opposing the teaching
of "creationism" in science classes. That statement begins as
follows:
The Council of the American Physical Society opposes proposals
to require "equal time" for presentation in public school science
classes of the biblical story of creation and the scientific theory
of evolution. The issues raised by such proposals, while mainly
focused on evolution, have important implications for the entire
spectrum of scientific inquiry, including geology, physics, and
astronomy. ... <another 4 or so sentences follow> ...
Scientific inquiry and religious beliefs are two distinct elements
of the human experience. Attempts to present them in the same
context can only lead to misunderstandings of both.
Other scientific societies have taken a similar position.
Please note, however, that I have set followups to the newsgroup
devoted to discussions of origins.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
none
On 23 Jul 1997 15:13:59 GMT, ah...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Gavin Whittaker)
wrote:
>: >While there are a few really good examples that certainly strongly
>: >suggest this process, there are a number of really intractable problems
>: >that make this a statment of faith rather than fact.
>: ^^^ ^^^
>: Then there is no distiction for either?
>
>: simplest theory to explain the gaps. There is, in my mind, no faith
>: required. If anything, skepticism dominates.
>
> Science also requires faith, I'm afraid.
Please define "faith".
>I'm not going to start listing the assumptions of science, but let's just
>point out that even at a basic level most physical sciences require
>one to believe that the laws of physics are immutable over space and time.
One is also expected to accept the proposition that if a=b, and b=c
then a=c.
Still, I see no *faith* in that assertion.
>It requires one to believe that what is observed is what is actually out there.
So we're talking about scientific philosophy?
Then the distictions begin to blur. If you compare theology to
philosophy, there are really not many differences. But if you are
comparing the scientific method to religious belief, I must object.
They are clearly not the same.
>By invoking Occam's Razor, you aren't necessarily getting the truth, just
>another act of faith - something you can get by with.
So who said "truth"? I have always operated under the assumption that
my major task as a scientist is not to provide the absolute truth of a
system, just the best available explanation of the data.
Perhaps you have a different view of what science is about?
>The skepticism you mention dominates some of the work, but very few
>scientists even scratch the surface of the basic assumptions they make.
You've just met a scientist who always questions the basic
assumptions.
I'm not intuitive enough to grasp things so quickly and have always
had to prove things to myself. There are theories that I must assume
work because they explain the data the best and I have no way to prove
them otherwise, but I am open to new theories that address the data
"better".
No faith required.
>Witness for example, a discussion about proving the existence of atoms
>on here some weeks ago. To some it was patently obvious that atoms
>existed, until definitive proof was asked for.
There are physical measurements that *indicate* that the components of
the atoms behave as theory predicts. In order to claim a similarity
between religion and science you would have to produce an insect with
four legs or describe a system of physical law where a man can walk on
water.
>: Faith, in my opinion (and many of my religious
>: friends and colleagues - anectodal evidence, I'll admit), is the
>: belief that what is taught is true, sometimes IN SPITE of what is
>: physically known.
>
> I'm afraid that IMO, that's stupidity. It often arises from a
>failure to look at the evidence for either the faith or the thing that
>is physically known.
Again, water to wine? Stopping the sun? The ressurection?
Faith, to me, is not *stupidity* as you claim. It is an absolute
assurance that things described in religious instruction are possible.
>Take, for example, the origin of this thread -
>creationism vs. evolution. Quite frankly (as a Christian) I think the
>creationists need to get a grip on themselves. The Creation narrative
>is clearly poetic, and arises from contemporaneous 'scientific' creation
>accounts.
Your belief is not dominant. There are plenty of non-Christians who
believe that the earth was created supernaturally and so were the
individuals who comprise mankind.
There is a Native American tribe in my region of the country who
proclaimed recently, and I'm paraphrasing here, that their tribe
didn't cross any land bridge; they were created right here in the
Pacific Northwest by their deity.
They have faith.
>The Genesis account takes the 'latest' theory and says
>'God did this, and this is why'. If it were written now, it would
>probably read something like 'In the Beginning, God said 'let there be a
>big bang...'
Again, there are other groups who are not Christian who would write
their creation story exactly as it appeared centuries ago.
They have faith.
>It was never intended to be a scientific explanation of
>creation and evolution, and it's stupidity to try to shoehorn it into
>the evidence.
Who is saying that the evidence is being shoehorned in anywhere? The
absolutely faithful do not need evidence beyond their religious
instruction. They reject all notion that science can explain anything
about our origins.
They have faith.
>Even the dullest literary student can spot the difference
>in written style between this narrative and other more historical
>accounts, although sadly, many creationists cannot.
That is your opinion. They have faith. And they believe what their
told regardless of what you or I think.
> Sadly, Wilberforce and the rest of the X-Club (not without some help
>from some bishops) left this legacy of schism between science and
>religion which is larger than is (IMO) actually warranted. Since both
>the sides are now polarised, real debate doesn't seem to matter any more.
But I am trying to make the point that these people will believe what
they are told, or have read, or FEEL, regardless of the evidence. You
call that stupidity, I call it faith.
>: I cannot think of one of the *dominant* religions
>: in the world that doesn't require some form of adherence to a belief
>: that would be valid even if information were provided to the contrary.
>
> I don't know about 'require'. It ultimately depends on what your
>boundary conditions are. If God exists, then miracles (for example) can
>happen, and they are by definition are not reproducible. To believe
>that a man can be raised from the dead in spite of the fact science
>doesn't allow for it is not doublethink, it just requires that God
>exists.
Your last statement proves my point about faith. As a matter of
"fact", no one has ever came back from the dead. So the belief that
one particular individual *did* is an article of faith.
Belief in spite of the fact - faith.
>: That is - once again, in my opinion - what makes each unique and
>: irreconcilably separate from each other.
>
> If we make a characature of each, then yes, they are irreconcilably
>separate. I personally don't recognise the pictures that are generally
>painted of them though.
Then you and I disagree about what constitutes faith, and about the
mission of science.
Regards,
cbayse
none wrote:
> >
> > Science also requires faith, I'm afraid.
>
> Please define "faith".
>
> >I'm not going to start listing the assumptions of science, but let's just
> >point out that even at a basic level most physical sciences require
> >one to believe that the laws of physics are immutable over space and time.
>
> One is also expected to accept the proposition that if a=b, and b=c
> then a=c.
>
> Still, I see no *faith* in that assertion.
>
i disagree. you have to have faith in your ability to make the
proposition. propositions are not always correct. people believed that
flies were created when you left food out to spoil. their proposition
was incorrect, but they had faith in their ability to do so and thus
believed it.
a correct proposition generally requires that you have enough
information to adequately make the proposition. i believe that there is
sufficient evidence to accept evolution on a microscale (evolution of
separate species of pigeons, or whatever), but i do not accept the
primordial soup theory or other origin theories due to lack of hard
evidence.
>
> >It was never intended to be a scientific explanation of
> >creation and evolution, and it's stupidity to try to shoehorn it into
> >the evidence.
>
> Who is saying that the evidence is being shoehorned in anywhere? The
> absolutely faithful do not need evidence beyond their religious
> instruction. They reject all notion that science can explain anything
> about our origins.
>
> They have faith.
>
you can turn the same agrument around for science. the origin of life
on earth can never be proved because it cannot be observed. the
'experiment' cannot be repeated. any argument science makes has to come
from faith that its suppositions are correct.
Jim Carr
Note followups.
"Steve Spence" <steve...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> the conservative right have never claimed that creation is science.
The "Conservative Right" may not have, but an organized group of
Creationists -- who are generally conservative politically -- does.
>they do point out the liberal left's mistake in claiming evolution is
>science.
The "Conservative Right" makes no such claim. The claim you parrot
is one of the typical statements made by Creationists to avoid talking
about the so-called 'creation science' "theory" they would like taught
and the very strong evidence against it.
Biology is a science, and it formulates theories that attempt to explain
the observed evolution of species, using those theories to motivate
new experiments or observations.
>Since neither was observed, neither can be claimed anything but
>what they are, theories, and should both be taught as such.
It would be very useful if the history of that branch of biological
science were taught in schools the way some other sciences introduce
students to the history of theoretical ideas in their fields and the
observations that led to their rejection and the adoption of new ones.
In that case, more people would know that what is called "creation
science" was one of the early theories used to try to explain the
distribution and evolution of species. However, as more and more
observations were made, this set of ideas were seen to fail miserably.
They were replaced with less biblical (but still creation-based) theories,
which also failed. The utter collapse of those ideas led, eventually,
to a theory based on natural selection that has worked quite well for
over a century.
Creationists would get quite upset if the fact that their ideas
were rejected by actual creationist scientists more than a century
ago was taught, so this historical approach is not taken in schools.
Note followups to the appropriate newsgroup for these discussions.
Scott Nudds
(David Bostwick) wrote:
: At the risk of starting The Debate, where did the original precursors of the
: universe come from?
A meaningless question. There was no before the universe existed,
just as there is no outside the universe.
The universe had a beginning or had no beginning. It all depends on
how you wish to extrapolate backwards.
What was the speed of light in a universe that was infinitely dense?
--
<---->
Brian Mueller
Wm James wrote:
>Superstition, by definition, means beleif in the supernatural.
Not exactly, but I guess we can accept it.
>
>If you do not accept that the concept of a god is supernatural,
>then be prepared to have your god subject to natural law. This
>means that unless you can explain it's origion and power by the
>laws of physics ( this means it cannot have any infinite
>qualities) it can't exist.
Nothing in physics gives a God which existed before the universe any
properties. This is why God is not observable by ordinary means. You
can't observe a radio wave without proper equipment, so why should you
be able to observe God without proper equipment?
God is the sentient culmination of all physical laws.
>As for evolution, it has passed ALL the tests.
The theory of evolution has been modified extensively since Darwin
originally thought of it. The only way for evolution to be a *fact* is
for someone to travel backward in time and whitness it happening.
btw in response to the title of the thread, I'm not a vegetarian. :)
-----
Brian Mueller -=-<muld...@ix.netcom.com>-=-
"Cogito ergo sum." -- Descartes ("I think, therefore I am.")
cbayse
none wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:42:34 -0700, cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >you have to have faith in your ability to make the proposition.
>
>
firm belief in something that you cannot prove.
> >propositions are not always correct. people believed that
> >flies were created when you left food out to spoil. their proposition
> >was incorrect, but they had faith in their ability to do so and thus
> >believed it.
>
> But that was just the best explanation for the observed data.
>
> It was subsequently found to be in error.
>
> Describe a method for determining the veracity of the claim that Jesus
> rose from the dead.
it cannot be done. describe a method for determining the veracity of
any origin of life theory. it cannot be done either, but you can have
faith in your abilities to hypothesize one.
it is interesting that you choose this example. what reason do you see
for it to be impossible?
>
> >a correct proposition generally requires that you have enough
> >information to adequately make the proposition. i believe that there is
> >sufficient evidence to accept evolution on a microscale (evolution of
> >separate species of pigeons, or whatever), but i do not accept the
> >primordial soup theory or other origin theories due to lack of hard
> >evidence.
>
> And what would the hard evidence do other than reinforce the theory?
>
disprove the theory.
> There may eventually be evidence that the primodial soup theory is
> wrong and I will gladly incorporate that new concept into my working
> mindset as data is gathered to support it.
>
> No faith required.
there is no proof of the primordial soup theory. you can only accept it
through faith, not faith in a god, but faith in science.
with the lack of hard evidence, any belief in primordial soup theory is
faith. this is further compounded by the fact that there can never be
any hard evidence, only hints and supposition. this is my problem with
*any* theory of how life began on earth, religious or scientific. you
can never prove anything, only have faith in whatever appears most
acceptable to you.
>
> >> >It was never intended to be a scientific explanation of
> >> >creation and evolution, and it's stupidity to try to shoehorn it into
> >> >the evidence.
> >>
> >> Who is saying that the evidence is being shoehorned in anywhere? The
> >> absolutely faithful do not need evidence beyond their religious
> >> instruction. They reject all notion that science can explain anything
> >> about our origins.
> >>
> >> They have faith.
> >>
> >
> >you can turn the same agrument around for science. the origin of life
> >on earth can never be proved because it cannot be observed. the
> >'experiment' cannot be repeated. any argument science makes has to come
> >from faith that its suppositions are correct.
>
> Not so. The faith that miracles occur will never be challenged even
> though there is ample evidence that they didn't occur (see Noah's
> flood).
>
you response doesn't match my statement.
none
>none wrote:
>> >
>> > Science also requires faith, I'm afraid.
>>
>> Please define "faith".
>>
>> >I'm not going to start listing the assumptions of science, but let's just
>> >point out that even at a basic level most physical sciences require
>> >one to believe that the laws of physics are immutable over space and time.
>>
>> One is also expected to accept the proposition that if a=b, and b=c
>> then a=c.
>>
>> Still, I see no *faith* in that assertion.
>>
>
>i disagree.
OK.
>you have to have faith in your ability to make the proposition.
Once again, please define "faith".
>propositions are not always correct. people believed that
>flies were created when you left food out to spoil. their proposition
>was incorrect, but they had faith in their ability to do so and thus
>believed it.
But that was just the best explanation for the observed data.
It was subsequently found to be in error.
Describe a method for determining the veracity of the claim that Jesus
rose from the dead.
>a correct proposition generally requires that you have enough
>information to adequately make the proposition. i believe that there is
>sufficient evidence to accept evolution on a microscale (evolution of
>separate species of pigeons, or whatever), but i do not accept the
>primordial soup theory or other origin theories due to lack of hard
>evidence.
And what would the hard evidence do other than reinforce the theory?
There may eventually be evidence that the primodial soup theory is
wrong and I will gladly incorporate that new concept into my working
mindset as data is gathered to support it.
No faith required.
>> >It was never intended to be a scientific explanation of
>> >creation and evolution, and it's stupidity to try to shoehorn it into
>> >the evidence.
>>
>> Who is saying that the evidence is being shoehorned in anywhere? The
>> absolutely faithful do not need evidence beyond their religious
>> instruction. They reject all notion that science can explain anything
>> about our origins.
>>
>> They have faith.
>>
>
>you can turn the same agrument around for science. the origin of life
>on earth can never be proved because it cannot be observed. the
>'experiment' cannot be repeated. any argument science makes has to come
>from faith that its suppositions are correct.
Not so. The faith that miracles occur will never be challenged even
though there is ample evidence that they didn't occur (see Noah's
flood).
none
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:56:31 -0700, cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu>
wrote:
>none wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:42:34 -0700, cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >you have to have faith in your ability to make the proposition.
>>
>> Once again, please define "faith".
>>
>
>firm belief in something that you cannot prove.
Then much of legal theory is also based on faith.
I think there is something unique about the faith that religious
individuals speak about. Perhaps we are not able to agree on this
particular subject.
>> >propositions are not always correct. people believed that
>> >flies were created when you left food out to spoil. their proposition
>> >was incorrect, but they had faith in their ability to do so and thus
>> >believed it.
>>
>> But that was just the best explanation for the observed data.
>>
>> It was subsequently found to be in error.
>>
>> Describe a method for determining the veracity of the claim that Jesus
>> rose from the dead.
>
>it cannot be done. describe a method for determining the veracity of
>any origin of life theory. it cannot be done either, but you can have
>faith in your abilities to hypothesize one.
But I am willing to reject the theory if one is presented that
describes the data better than the present one.
Ask anyone who is religious if they feel the same about the
resurrection.
>it is interesting that you choose this example. what reason do you see
>for it to be impossible?
The fact that no one else has done it (except in the context of
religious belief).
>> >a correct proposition generally requires that you have enough
>> >information to adequately make the proposition. i believe that there is
>> >sufficient evidence to accept evolution on a microscale (evolution of
>> >separate species of pigeons, or whatever), but i do not accept the
>> >primordial soup theory or other origin theories due to lack of hard
>> >evidence.
>>
>> And what would the hard evidence do other than reinforce the theory?
>>
>
>disprove the theory.
That isn't proof.
Disprove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
>> There may eventually be evidence that the primodial soup theory is
>> wrong and I will gladly incorporate that new concept into my working
>> mindset as data is gathered to support it.
>>
>> No faith required.
>
>there is no proof of the primordial soup theory. you can only accept it
>through faith, not faith in a god, but faith in science.
In my opinion, you are denegrating religion by making that comparison.
You are making a case that the existence of the deity described in the
bible can be proven scientifically.
There are several theologians who would reject that notion.
>with the lack of hard evidence, any belief in primordial soup theory is
>faith.
Would the presence of hard evidence to the contrary make a religious
person give up their belief?
I think not.
>this is further compounded by the fact that there can never be
>any hard evidence, only hints and supposition.
Now you have moved into the realm of scientific philosophy, not the
scientific method.
Read Kant, Locke and Hume for arguements both ways on the existence of
absolute truth.
I only deal with the best explanation of the facts.
>this is my problem with *any* theory of how life began on earth, religious or
>scientific.
That isn't the only realm of scientific knowledge.
>you can never prove anything, only have faith in whatever appears most
>acceptable to you.
Then don't turn on your television set. If you don't completely
understand the underlying science that produced the technology, then
you cannot be assured that it is really working or that it is just a
fantasy.
>
>> >you can turn the same agrument around for science. the origin of life
>> >on earth can never be proved because it cannot be observed. the
>> >'experiment' cannot be repeated. any argument science makes has to come
>> >from faith that its suppositions are correct.
>>
>> Not so. The faith that miracles occur will never be challenged even
>> though there is ample evidence that they didn't occur (see Noah's
>> flood).
>>
>
>you response doesn't match my statement.
It was meant to provide an couter-analogy to your statement. Why do
you think that science is the only philosophy that needs to be
defended?
Gerard Fryer
Congratulations, all contributors to this discussion (and the threads
Changes to our CO2 emissions levels, Hydrogen as a automotive fuel,
Evolution and creation by faith, Global warming - Ocean absorbtion of
CO2 with iron? etc, etc). Your spamming has destroyed what value
sci.geo.geology (and presumably sci.bio.ecology, sci.chem, sci.energy,
sci.environment, and sci.physics) ever had. You neophytes seem
incapable of understanding the evils of cross-posting. Clearly none of
you has read or understood the news.announce.newusers FAQ (in
particular,
http://www.netannounce.org/news.announce.newusers/archive/usenet/
emily-postnews/part1)
Clearly, only few of you recognize the irony here: your destruction of
a useful resource--Usenet--parallels exactly the destruction of global
resources that so many of you delight in pontificating over.
--
Gerard Fryer http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/gerard/
Personal views only.
Ted Mooney
cbayse wrote:
> > One is also expected to accept the proposition that if a=b, and b=c
> > then a=c.
> >
> > Still, I see no *faith* in that assertion.
> >
>
> proposition. propositions are not always correct. people believed that
> flies were created when you left food out to spoil. their proposition
> was incorrect, but they had faith in their ability to do so and thus
> believed it.
> information to adequately make the proposition. i believe that there is
> sufficient evidence to accept evolution on a microscale (evolution of
> separate species of pigeons, or whatever), but i do not accept the
> primordial soup theory or other origin theories due to lack of hard
> > Who is saying that the evidence is being shoehorned in anywhere? The
> > absolutely faithful do not need evidence beyond their religious
> > instruction. They reject all notion that science can explain anything
> > about our origins.
> >
> > They have faith.
> >
>
> on earth can never be proved because it cannot be observed. the
> 'experiment' cannot be repeated. any argument science makes has to come
> from faith that its suppositions are correct.
You are right on target here. As a neutral I can't escape noting the
rush to judgement by the scientists when certain hotspots are touched.
You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and on rational days
science knows it well. But desperate to disprove a God, it throws its
own rules and common sense to the wind, trying to use physical
observations to 'prove' metaphysical hypotheses. It should know better.
'Equal time' probably should not consist of reading Genesis, but simply
of saying "IF you believe in evolution, here is the fossil record, which
can prove interesting and useful -- but there can never be anything in
the fossil record that will prove evolution theory".
Gregory Dandulakis
I discern too much certainty in the above lines. Product of some
current "physicists", who have no relation to the true "natural
philosophers/great physicists" of the first half of our century.
Who told you that the concept "zero" of mathematics (used in theo-
retical physics) has anything to do with the concept "nothingness"
of the natural philosopher (e.g. Schroedinger). Since when the
expression "zero electric charge" means also "no existing electric
charges"?! And since when the concept "infinity" of math has ever
been observed/measured in physical reality, so we can take the ulti-
mate extrapolations of our current mathematical physical models too
seriously in that regime of infinity?
Serious physicists (including Einstein, of course) know that the
variable "time" in their physical models is just a pale analogue
of the physical _real/experiencial_ time. Since when the timeless
equations of our mathematical models (timeless as all the math is)
have grasped the most fundamental element of our physical reality/
experience which is the _nowness_? Physics needs to first "kill"
the time, before it is possible to extract some properties out of
the physical time.
Bottomline: The original question remains as valid and as vivid as
always, IMHO (of course). And even if an ad-hoc, dogmatic and mirac-
ulous "dominant religious approach" might sound unsatisfactory into
answering this question, the equally categorical notions/"answers
emanating from some followers/interpreters/courtiers of our current
physicists sound even more absurd. But you don't even need to go
back in time to experience "creation from nothing"; unpredictabi-
lity is built-in in some of our current physical models (quantum
mechanics), and that's a form of creation from nothing. A conti-
nuous creation. Ontology (or the nature of the ultimate reality)
will always remain a mystery and indescribable. Some mystics, even
within the Christian traditions, have adopted the "apophatic" (nega-
tivistic) approach to the "ultimate". The "word", after all, might
be only a convenient palliative, but no treatment.
Gregory
PS: Someone has to whisper about the theories of eternally and
chaotically inflating universe. That our _observable_ universe
is not necessarily _the_ universe. They might be wrong, but
they are possibilities equally valid (and after COBE satellite,
they have some observational basis too).
As someone (who?) recently said, cosmology abandons the naive
previous goal of cracking the mysteries of _the_ universe, and
becomes another _local_ physical theory of ours at the (spatio-
temporal) macroscale.
And if the Pandora's box of "unobservable by us, but existing
other physical (sub)universes" is opened, then the philosophical
can of worms is back home. If science is impotent, and if esta-
blished religions seem too ad hoc to answer _the_ question, then
what?...
Wm James
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:29:11 GMT, muld...@ix.netcom.com (Brian
Mueller) wrote:
:Wm James wrote:
:
:>Superstition, by definition, means beleif in the supernatural.
:
:Not exactly, but I guess we can accept it.
:
:>
:>If you do not accept that the concept of a god is supernatural,
:>then be prepared to have your god subject to natural law. This
:>means that unless you can explain it's origion and power by the
:>laws of physics ( this means it cannot have any infinite
:>qualities) it can't exist.
:
:Nothing in physics gives a God which existed before the universe any
:properties. This is why God is not observable by ordinary means. You
:can't observe a radio wave without proper equipment, so why should you
:be able to observe God without proper equipment?
No, there was no "before the universe" even if you don't accept
the big bang. But radio waves are testable and explainable. A
god, by definition, is not subject to the laws of nature.
Infinity, as a mathamatical concept is very useful, but it has no
place in reality.
:God is the sentient culmination of all physical laws.
Gods defy all phisical laws. Otherwise, decribe one, show it to
us. Allow us to test it.
:>As for evolution, it has passed ALL the tests.
:
:The theory of evolution has been modified extensively since Darwin
:originally thought of it. The only way for evolution to be a *fact* is
:for someone to travel backward in time and whitness it happening.
Darwin had absolutely no knowledge of genetics, yet the darwinian
madel is still considered fairly accurate. The modifications
were minor. Science makes predictions to test the theories.
Evolution predicted that a vast number of extinct species would
be discovered, and they were. Evolution predicted understanding
of aquired traits, and it was correct. Evolution very nearly
predicted genetics.
:btw in response to the title of the thread, I'm not a vegetarian. :)
:-----
:Brian Mueller -=-<muld...@ix.netcom.com>-=-
:"Cogito ergo sum." -- Descartes ("I think, therefore I am.")
William R. James
Jim Carr
Note that followups are to the group where this is discussed.
Dicuss it there, please.
david.b...@chemistry.gatech.edu (David Bostwick) writes:
>
>At the risk of starting The Debate, where did the original precursors of the
>universe come from?
Evolution does not concern the origin of the universe.
Creationists argue for a recent origin of the universe that is in
conflict with physical and geological observations.
>And if I recall correctly, evolutionary theory has been modified
>several times, and new discoveries require regular reevaluation of current
>ideas.
That is the nature of scientific theories. They may be modified or
replaced when new data is obtained. That is, in fact, why the
creationist theories used originally in biology were replaced.
Jim Carr
G <gr...@foo.icanect.net> writes:
>
>First, I think you are confusing the word 'science' with the word 'fact'.
>Science is all about coming up with and testing out new theories.
Correct. It is also about accepting the results of those tests.
>Second, I agree that both "theories" should be taught in school.
Why should a religion be taught in science class?
Why should children be confused by unsupported assertions that
radioactive decay rates and the speed of light change with time
to suit their reading of Genesis? Should physics be based on
experiment or religion?
>Let the
>children decide for themselves. I think they will prove to be a lot more
>intelligent than most people would think. Show them creationism and all the
>"evidence" in favor of it. Then show the evolution and all its evidence.
That is not how science proceeds. There is a mountain of evidence that
the young-earth creationism espoused by the ICR is wrong -- evidence so
convincing that scientists trained to believe in it had to reject it
more than a century ago. Teach them _that_ and it will still not
disappear, but more people will understand that it is religion, not
science and that evidence against a particular evolutionary theory
is not proof for a particular brand of creationism.
cbayse
none wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 15:56:31 -0700, cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >none wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 20:42:34 -0700, cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >firm belief in something that you cannot prove.
>
> Then much of legal theory is also based on faith.
and noone is called legal theory scientific, are they?
>
> I think there is something unique about the faith that religious
> individuals speak about. Perhaps we are not able to agree on this
> particular subject.
>
you are probably right that we will not agree.
> >> >propositions are not always correct. people believed that
> >> >flies were created when you left food out to spoil. their proposition
> >> >was incorrect, but they had faith in their ability to do so and thus
> >> >believed it.
> >>
> >> But that was just the best explanation for the observed data.
> >>
> >> It was subsequently found to be in error.
> >>
> >> Describe a method for determining the veracity of the claim that Jesus
> >> rose from the dead.
> >
> >it cannot be done. describe a method for determining the veracity of
> >any origin of life theory. it cannot be done either, but you can have
> >faith in your abilities to hypothesize one.
>
> But I am willing to reject the theory if one is presented that
> describes the data better than the present one.
>
you have accepted primordial soup theory without any evidence. i am
willing to accept primordial soup theory if i am given some experimental
evidence for it.
> Ask anyone who is religious if they feel the same about the
> resurrection.
>
> >it is interesting that you choose this example. what reason do you see
> >for it to be impossible?
>
> The fact that no one else has done it (except in the context of
> religious belief).
>
to our knowledge, life only exists on earth (people can suppose anything
they want about mars or the chances of life elsewhere, it means nothing
without proof)
> >> >a correct proposition generally requires that you have enough
> >> >information to adequately make the proposition. i believe that there is
> >> >sufficient evidence to accept evolution on a microscale (evolution of
> >> >separate species of pigeons, or whatever), but i do not accept the
> >> >primordial soup theory or other origin theories due to lack of hard
> >> >evidence.
> >>
> >> And what would the hard evidence do other than reinforce the theory?
> >>
> >
> >disprove the theory.
>
> That isn't proof.
>
i disagree. the discovery that flies laid eggs in food *disproves* the
theory that maggots are spontaneously generated from spoiled food.
> >> There may eventually be evidence that the primodial soup theory is
> >> wrong and I will gladly incorporate that new concept into my working
> >> mindset as data is gathered to support it.
> >>
> >> No faith required.
> >
> >there is no proof of the primordial soup theory. you can only accept it
> >through faith, not faith in a god, but faith in science.
>
> In my opinion, you are denegrating religion by making that comparison.
>
your opinion is probably due to our semantic differences of what faith
is. i do not attempt to reconcile religion to science. religion is
solely based on faith, science on reason(with a reliance of a certain
number of presuppositions(i would call that reliance faith)). you
generally get into trouble when you swap those bases. creation science
is a good example of that. (don't think that i am defending creation
science by rejecting primordial soup theory)
> You are making a case that the existence of the deity described in the
> bible can be proven scientifically.
you are making that assumption, i never said that. scientifically, no.
philosophically, yes.
> There are several theologians who would reject that notion.
>
as would i.
> >with the lack of hard evidence, any belief in primordial soup theory is
> >faith.
>
> Would the presence of hard evidence to the contrary make a religious
> person give up their belief?
>
> I think not.
>
my entire point on this discussion has been that primordial soup theory
is based on very loose evidence and strong supposition without
experimental evidence and therefore should not be presented as a
scientific theory.
why is it necessary for people to give up their religion in the face of
scientific evidence supporting primordial soups or whatever origin of
life theory you can come up with? if that is what you want, then you
are making the case that the biblical diety can be *disproven*
scientifically.
> >this is further compounded by the fact that there can never be
> >any hard evidence, only hints and supposition.
>
> Now you have moved into the realm of scientific philosophy, not the
> scientific method.
>
i don't think so. the scientific method requires experimentation.
without the experimentation, you only have a hypothesis. i can do
calculations on molecular systems and 'discover' some interesting
phenomenon, but until that phenomenon is shown experimentally, it
doesn't mean squat.
> Read Kant, Locke and Hume for arguements both ways on the existence of
> absolute truth.
>
> I only deal with the best explanation of the facts.
>
there are no facts, only supposition.
> >this is my problem with *any* theory of how life began on earth, religious or
> >scientific.
>
> That isn't the only realm of scientific knowledge.
>
that is the realm that we are discussing. you are mistaken if you think
that i am attacking science as a whole.
> >you can never prove anything, only have faith in whatever appears most
> >acceptable to you.
>
> Then don't turn on your television set. If you don't completely
> understand the underlying science that produced the technology, then
> you cannot be assured that it is really working or that it is just a
> fantasy.
that is not an acceptable analogy(also, you have taken my statement out
of context, i was refering the origin of life theories). even if i
myself cannot construct a tv set, someone had the knowledge to do so.
do you think that if you throw some parts into a tv casing and shake it
enough that you will get a functioning unit? you should if you are
willing to accept the same for the more complex system of life.
> >
> >> >you can turn the same agrument around for science. the origin of life
> >> >on earth can never be proved because it cannot be observed. the
> >> >'experiment' cannot be repeated. any argument science makes has to come
> >> >from faith that its suppositions are correct.
> >>
> >> Not so. The faith that miracles occur will never be challenged even
> >> though there is ample evidence that they didn't occur (see Noah's
> >> flood).
> >>
> >
> >you response doesn't match my statement.
>
> It was meant to provide an couter-analogy to your statement. Why do
> you think that science is the only philosophy that needs to be
> defended?
>
science is what we are discussing here. i am not attacking science, but
the idea that primordial soup theory passes the requirements of the
scientific method to become a scientific theory. there is a hypothesis,
but no conclusive experimental results. when someone creates life in a
test tube, then you will have a theory. any other data is only evidence
through supposition. however, from a more philosophical standpoint, the
theory will still be inadequate because the true 'experiment' is
unrepeatable.
you propose that science can know something that is impossible to know.
i say that science has limitations and any attempt for science to go
beyond those limitations is faith.
none
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 18:30:12 -0700, cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu>
wrote:
>none wrote:
>> >> Once again, please define "faith".
>> >>
>> >
>> >firm belief in something that you cannot prove.
>>
>> Then much of legal theory is also based on faith.
>
>and noone is called legal theory scientific, are they?
Never said they were.
That was provided as a counter to your definition. As you've defined
"faith", just about anything could be considered a religion.
>> I think there is something unique about the faith that religious
>> individuals speak about. Perhaps we are not able to agree on this
>> particular subject.
>>
>
>you are probably right that we will not agree.
That's OK.
>> But I am willing to reject the theory if one is presented that
>> describes the data better than the present one.
>>
>
>you have accepted primordial soup theory without any evidence.
Where did you get that?
>i am willing to accept primordial soup theory if i am given some
>experimental evidence for it.
I'll get you the name of the experiment.
>> The fact that no one else has done it (except in the context of
>> religious belief).
>
>to our knowledge, life only exists on earth (people can suppose anything
>they want about mars or the chances of life elsewhere, it means nothing
>without proof)
People can suppose all they want about miracles, it means nothing
without proof.
But then there's faith......
>> >disprove the theory.
>>
>> That isn't proof.
>
>i disagree. the discovery that flies laid eggs in food *disproves* the
>theory that maggots are spontaneously generated from spoiled food.
I must have misunderstood your earlier assertion. If you are
proposing that hard evidence of a primordial soup will disprove its
existance, then we disagree again.
Please review the comment thread again.
>> >there is no proof of the primordial soup theory. you can only accept it
>> >through faith, not faith in a god, but faith in science.
>>
>> In my opinion, you are denegrating religion by making that comparison.
>>
>
>your opinion is probably due to our semantic differences of what faith
>is.
You're probably right.
>i do not attempt to reconcile religion to science. religion is
>solely based on faith, science on reason(with a reliance of a certain
>number of presuppositions(i would call that reliance faith)).
That would be my definition except for the concommittant definition of
presupposition and faith.
I reject the comparison.
>you generally get into trouble when you swap those bases.
I'm not trying to.
>creation science is a good example of that. (don't think that i am defending creation
>science by rejecting primordial soup theory)
I wouldn't.
>
>> You are making a case that the existence of the deity described in the
>> bible can be proven scientifically.
>
>you are making that assumption, i never said that. scientifically, no.
>philosophically, yes.
My assumption proves my point. I made a presupposition based on
information I received. I did not accept my conclusion as an article
of faith. I mearly operated on that presupposition until given more
data. I now reject my presupposition for a new understanding of the
system. I now accept your statement as fact. No faith required.
>> There are several theologians who would reject that notion.
>
>as would i.
""
>> Would the presence of hard evidence to the contrary make a religious
>> person give up their belief?
>>
>> I think not.
>>
>
>my entire point on this discussion has been that primordial soup theory
>is based on very loose evidence and strong supposition without
>experimental evidence and therefore should not be presented as a
>scientific theory.
A scientific theory does not have to rely on hard experimental
evidence. It can be supported by hard observational evidence. The
supposition that the acceptance of that theory is a faith-based system
is false. The very next observation could bring the whole theory
down. What replaces it would incorporate the old observational data
and the new observation.
>why is it necessary for people to give up their religion in the face of
>scientific evidence supporting primordial soups or whatever origin of
>life theory you can come up with?
I have no idea. Apparently there are creationists who believe they
must.
>if that is what you want,
It isn't.
>then you are making the case that the biblical diety can be *disproven*
>scientifically.
It is not the job of the skeptic to disprove a positive assertion of
fact.
Disprove that I have an Invisible Pink Unicorn.
>> >this is further compounded by the fact that there can never be
>> >any hard evidence, only hints and supposition.
>>
>> Now you have moved into the realm of scientific philosophy, not the
>> scientific method.
>
>i don't think so. the scientific method requires experimentation.
Not necessarily.
Much of Einstien's work has not been proven experimentally (although
there are projects near where I'm working that are making an attempt
to measure gravity waves), but that doesn't mean he didn't follow the
scientific method.
There is a great deal of technology that works on principles derived
from scientific observations that are not "proven" by experimentation.
>without the experimentation, you only have a hypothesis.
Incorrect. You can verify a hypothesis by gathering more
observational data. If it conforms to the conditions set in the
hypothesis, it is possible to establish a theory.
>i can do calculations on molecular systems and 'discover' some interesting
>phenomenon, but until that phenomenon is shown experimentally, it
>doesn't mean squat.
What can you say then about television and radio broadcasts? Much of
the design work of aerial antennas is based on electromagnetic theory
that is based on non-experimental observations.
>
>there are no facts, only supposition.
You will die someday.
That is a fact, not a supposition.
>> >this is my problem with *any* theory of how life began on earth, religious or
>> >scientific.
>>
>> That isn't the only realm of scientific knowledge.
>
>that is the realm that we are discussing. you are mistaken if you think
>that i am attacking science as a whole.
If you attack one set of principles derived from science, then you
attack science as a whole.
The information gathered for the theories of evolution, cosmology and
plate tectonics were obtained using the scientific method. To believe
that the information gathered is invalid simply because they deal with
questions of origins is to say that one set of information is
different because of the topic.
I reject that notion.
>> >you can never prove anything, only have faith in whatever appears most
>> >acceptable to you.
>>
>> Then don't turn on your television set. If you don't completely
>> understand the underlying science that produced the technology, then
>> you cannot be assured that it is really working or that it is just a
>> fantasy.
>
>that is not an acceptable analogy(also, you have taken my statement out
>of context, i was refering the origin of life theories).
I find the analogy acceptable and I didn't take your statement out of
context to gain some undefined advantage. I was using that statement
to make a point since I thought it central to the discussion.
>even if i myself cannot construct a tv set, someone had the
>knowledge to do so.
Then you accept the theory of electomagnetics as an article of faith.
>do you think that if you throw some parts into a tv casing and shake it
>enough that you will get a functioning unit? you should if you are
>willing to accept the same for the more complex system of life.
The idea that you can separate one theory from another simply because
of the issues that it addresses is, in my opinion, unacceptable.
>> >
>> >> Not so. The faith that miracles occur will never be challenged even
>> >> though there is ample evidence that they didn't occur (see Noah's
>> >> flood).
>> >
>> >you response doesn't match my statement.
>>
>> It was meant to provide an couter-analogy to your statement. Why do
>> you think that science is the only philosophy that needs to be
>> defended?
>
>science is what we are discussing here. i am not attacking science, but
>the idea that primordial soup theory passes the requirements of the
>scientific method to become a scientific theory.
Then you are attacking science or you are implying that the theory of
evolution is contrived and does not use the scientifc method to draw
its conclusions. I reject either propostion.
>there is a hypothesis, but no conclusive experimental results.
As I've noted before, there are many examples of theories that do not
have experimental evidence to support them. That does not make the
theories invalid or the conclusions drawn from them articles of faith.
>when someone creates life in a test tube, then you will have a theory.
That won't be long in coming.
BTW, how do you define life? Is a virus life?
>any other data is only evidence through supposition.
Data is not supposition. Data is data.
>however, from a more philosophical standpoint, the
>theory will still be inadequate because the true 'experiment' is
>unrepeatable.
And so is nuclear theory. Nuclear reactor design is based on the
information derived from theories that cannot be proven through
experiment. Nuclear reactors work regardless of the ability to prove
each supposition.
>
>you propose that science can know something that is impossible to know.
Not so. I propose that science provides the best explanation for the
observations at hand.
>i say that science has limitations and any attempt for science to go
>beyond those limitations is faith.
We disagree on that point.
Joseph Zorzin
crs wrote:
> Now I have a question for all you dyed-in-the-wool creationites out there. What data -
> what evidence will convince you to abandon your misplaced literalist faith in the pleasent
> poetry of Genesis? If your tactic is to come to your conclusion first and look for
> rhetorical inconsistancies in competing theories, you are not practicing science. There is
> not one scintilla of evidence supporting creationism and yet you want to teach it in the
> schools as another "equivalent theory." Where is your honesty?
>
> Chuck Szmanda
> chu...@ultranet.com
The issue of honesty is the critical one here. When I knew nothing about
geology, I read some creationist literature and it sounded very good. It
sounded technical and there seemed to be some good arguments. Then I
read a dozen or so college level geology books. Then I reread the
creationist listerature and it was obvious to me that the authors really
understood geology pretty well, enough to use the lingo but the logic
and lingo of geology were obviously twisted to confuse those who know
nothing of the science (most people).
--
http://forestmeister.com
"The ONLY forester's web page in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts".
Rick Troendle
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Ted Mooney wrote:
<snip>
:> > They have faith.
:> >
<snip>
:> you can turn the same agrument around for science. the origin of life
:> on earth can never be proved because it cannot be observed. the
:> 'experiment' cannot be repeated. any argument science makes has to come
:> from faith that its suppositions are correct.
:
:You are right on target here. As a neutral I can't escape noting the
:
:You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and on rational days
:science knows it well. But desperate to disprove a God, it throws its
:own rules and common sense to the wind, trying to use physical
:observations to 'prove' metaphysical hypotheses. It should know better.
:
:'Equal time' probably should not consist of reading Genesis, but simply
:of saying "IF you believe in evolution, here is the fossil record, which
:can prove interesting and useful -- but there can never be anything in
:the fossil record that will prove evolution theory".
Since when is science so desperate to disprove God? I for one believe in
God. The God I believe in may not be the same God that you believe in, but
I still believe in God. "It should know better," where the it is science.
Science does not know anything, science is not a person.
As far as equal time: why should science give equal time to religion (what
is what you are really talking about, not God) when religion is not going
to teach science in church. When I was young I learned about creation in
church and CCD, and I learned about evolution in science class. Then I was
able to join the two, reject one or the other, or whatever the hell I
wanted to do.
You say you are a neutral! Yet your answer says you are anything but.
=====================================
Rick Troendle
troe...@5chem.ufl.edu (remove 5 for no spam reply)
University of Florida
Department of Chemistry
Gainesville, FL 32611-7200
Nancy Ann Crosby
>
> I suppose my viewpoint sets me in the middle of the road, and that
> I'll be flamed by both sides. Still, I fail to see the conflict.
> Creationism is a religious belief. Evolution is a scientific
> concept based upon observation. Direct comparisions between
> the two is not only pointless, but impossible.
>
the conflict, as I understand it, comes when creationists attempt to set up
their religious beliefs as a scientific theory, and one as valid as the theory
of evolution, *scientifically.* Creationists attempt to get their religious
beliefs taught in classrooms on equal footing with the theory of evolution, as
a legitimate and plausible scientific explanation. Many creationists seem
unable/unwilling to accept the distinction between a religious belief and a
scientific theory, and attempt to undermine scientific work with religious
beliefs. Scientists then attempt to point out the differences, and elucidate
why religious beliefs should not be treated as science. But since it is an
unfortunate truth that science is not always well understood, and because
many people have a vested interest in passing off their particular beliefs as
the only right way to think about the world, the inaccurate comparisons
continue to be made. Creationists want to find a way to justify their
beliefs, and they therefore often seek to give those beliefs a sort of
pseudo-scientific manner, clouding the issue.
As you point out, accurate direct comparisons are impossible. But that
doesn't stop people from trying, however inaccurately, unfortunately.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Nancy A. Crosby The truth does not change according +
+ nan...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu to our ability to stomach it +
+ http://www.uwm.edu/~nancyc -Flannery O'Connor +
bigted
>At the risk of starting The Debate, where did the original precursors of the
>universe come from? Both creationists and evolutionists accept things by
>faith.
In Gregory Benford's classic SF novel "Timescape" (1980) he suggests
that every particle reaction gives off a tachyon (a particle that
moves faster than light and backwards in time). As these tachyons
flood back in time, they collide with - and therefore heat up -
tardyons (slower-than-light particles). Eventually they reach a point
where the tardyon density is high enough to absorb all tachyonic
radiation; the Big Bang. Thus the universe is its own creating force.
But, it's only a novel, Ingrid. :)
>And if I recall correctly, evolutionary theory has been modified
>several times, and new discoveries require regular reevaluation of current
>ideas. Even some of the Sojourner data has surprised people, and theories
>of Mars' beginnings may need changing.
That's science! :)
=================================
Whose Side Are You on?
that would be telling
=================================
Please note: my ISP's news server
is crap. Please email copies of
any reply you may have. Thank you
=================================
cbayse
none wrote:
> >> Then much of legal theory is also based on faith.
> >
> >and noone is called legal theory scientific, are they?
>
> Never said they were.
>
> That was provided as a counter to your definition. As you've defined
> "faith", just about anything could be considered a religion.
>
faith and religion are not necessarily the same just like a square and a
rhombus are not necessarily the same. religion requires faith, faith
does not imply religion. i have faith that the postal service will
deliver my mail, but i do not worship the u.s. postmaster.
>
> >> But I am willing to reject the theory if one is presented that
> >> describes the data better than the present one.
> >>
> >
> >you have accepted primordial soup theory without any evidence.
>
> Where did you get that?
>
> >i am willing to accept primordial soup theory if i am given some
> >experimental evidence for it.
>
> I'll get you the name of the experiment.
>
please do.
> >> The fact that no one else has done it (except in the context of
> >> religious belief).
> >
> >to our knowledge, life only exists on earth (people can suppose anything
> >they want about mars or the chances of life elsewhere, it means nothing
> >without proof)
>
> People can suppose all they want about miracles, it means nothing
> without proof.
>
> But then there's faith......
you contradict yourself. if people can suppose whatever they want to
about miracles, but have it mean nothing without proof, why can science
make suppositions about how life began, but not be required to prove it.
if believe in miracles is faith, then for the same reason believe in
primordial soup theories is faith. there is some observational evidence
for miracles, so i'm told, much of it from physicians.
>
> >> >disprove the theory.
> >>
> >> That isn't proof.
> >
> >i disagree. the discovery that flies laid eggs in food *disproves* the
> >theory that maggots are spontaneously generated from spoiled food.
>
> I must have misunderstood your earlier assertion. If you are
> proposing that hard evidence of a primordial soup will disprove its
> existance, then we disagree again.
>
i am proposing that hard evidence *against* a primordial soup theory
will disprove it.
>
> >i do not attempt to reconcile religion to science. religion is
> >solely based on faith, science on reason(with a reliance of a certain
> >number of presuppositions(i would call that reliance faith)).
>
> That would be my definition except for the concommittant definition of
> presupposition and faith.
>
> I reject the comparison.
>
> >you generally get into trouble when you swap those bases.
>
> I'm not trying to.
>
i meant you in a generic sense, not you specifically.
> >
> >> You are making a case that the existence of the deity described in the
> >> bible can be proven scientifically.
> >
> >you are making that assumption, i never said that. scientifically, no.
> >philosophically, yes.
>
> My assumption proves my point. I made a presupposition based on
> information I received. I did not accept my conclusion as an article
> of faith. I mearly operated on that presupposition until given more
> data. I now reject my presupposition for a new understanding of the
> system. I now accept your statement as fact. No faith required.
>
however, your presupposition was not made objectively. creationism and
evolution are not mutually exclusive.
> >> Would the presence of hard evidence to the contrary make a religious
> >> person give up their belief?
> >>
> >> I think not.
> >>
> >
> >my entire point on this discussion has been that primordial soup theory
> >is based on very loose evidence and strong supposition without
> >experimental evidence and therefore should not be presented as a
> >scientific theory.
>
> A scientific theory does not have to rely on hard experimental
> evidence. It can be supported by hard observational evidence. The
> supposition that the acceptance of that theory is a faith-based system
> is false. The very next observation could bring the whole theory
> down. What replaces it would incorporate the old observational data
> and the new observation.
>
3.5 billion years of evidence are in the crapper. that's a lot of
missing evidence that cannot ever be observed. the acceptance of a
theory in light of insurmountable lack of evidence (such as lack of
evidence that there is a god) can only be achieved through faith.
> >why is it necessary for people to give up their religion in the face of
> >scientific evidence supporting primordial soups or whatever origin of
> >life theory you can come up with?
>
> I have no idea. Apparently there are creationists who believe they
> must.
>
> >if that is what you want,
>
> It isn't.
>
> >then you are making the case that the biblical diety can be *disproven*
> >scientifically.
>
> It is not the job of the skeptic to disprove a positive assertion of
> fact.
>
> Disprove that I have an Invisible Pink Unicorn.
>
> >> >this is further compounded by the fact that there can never be
> >> >any hard evidence, only hints and supposition.
> >>
> >> Now you have moved into the realm of scientific philosophy, not the
> >> scientific method.
> >
> >i don't think so. the scientific method requires experimentation.
>
> Not necessarily.
>
> Much of Einstien's work has not been proven experimentally (although
> there are projects near where I'm working that are making an attempt
> to measure gravity waves), but that doesn't mean he didn't follow the
> scientific method.
>
it would mean, however, that the scientific method has not been
fulfilled. if i think A (and A is not known) and create a hypothesis to
describe A, then i need to observe something that shows that A is
possible. since A is not known, then i need to do an experiment. if i
see A, then i have a theory and i need to do more experiments. if i see
B, then i need to redo my hypothesis and do more experiments.
> There is a great deal of technology that works on principles derived
> from scientific observations that are not "proven" by experimentation.
>
> >without the experimentation, you only have a hypothesis.
>
> Incorrect. You can verify a hypothesis by gathering more
> observational data. If it conforms to the conditions set in the
> hypothesis, it is possible to establish a theory.
>
if you have a hypothesis that describes how life was formed on earth,
then the only observation that is possible to establish the hypothesis
as a theory is to create life in accordance with the hypothesis.
primordial soup theory has not passed this test.
> >i can do calculations on molecular systems and 'discover' some interesting
> >phenomenon, but until that phenomenon is shown experimentally, it
> >doesn't mean squat.
>
> What can you say then about television and radio broadcasts? Much of
> the design work of aerial antennas is based on electromagnetic theory
> that is based on non-experimental observations.
> >
> >there are no facts, only supposition.
>
> You will die someday.
>
> That is a fact, not a supposition.
again, you are taking my words out of context. i was refering to facts
which prove primordial soup theory. there is life (fact). how did it
happen? answer is supposition without an experiment that produces life.
> >
> >that is the realm that we are discussing. you are mistaken if you think
> >that i am attacking science as a whole.
>
> If you attack one set of principles derived from science, then you
> attack science as a whole.
>
nonsense. i am disagreeing with application of scientific method, not
the scientific method itself. that i don't accept primordial soup
theory does not mean that i reject science as a whole. if so, i'm in
the wrong profession.
> The information gathered for the theories of evolution, cosmology and
> plate tectonics were obtained using the scientific method. To believe
> that the information gathered is invalid simply because they deal with
> questions of origins is to say that one set of information is
> different because of the topic.
i never said that i rejected primordial soup theory because of its
status as an origin theory. you have also broadened what you think i am
saying to include topics which i have not discussed. try to limit the
dicussion to what we have discussed rather than making incorrect
suppositions about my opinions on other topics.
primordial soup theory has not survived experimentation; therefore, i
see it stuck somewhere in the scientific method. if it survives intact,
i would consider it a scientific theory.
> >even if i myself cannot construct a tv set, someone had the
> >knowledge to do so.
>
> Then you accept the theory of electomagnetics as an article of faith.
>
i can consider that the functioning of the tv is proof that the theory
works. therefore, faith is not involved. primordial soup theory has
not been shown to work.
> >do you think that if you throw some parts into a tv casing and shake it
> >enough that you will get a functioning unit? you should if you are
> >willing to accept the same for the more complex system of life.
>
> The idea that you can separate one theory from another simply because
> of the issues that it addresses is, in my opinion, unacceptable.
>
that's ridiculous. you cannot discuss geological theories in terms of
biological theories. disproving quantum theory does not mean that
geological theories are incorrect.
> >> It was meant to provide an couter-analogy to your statement. Why do
> >> you think that science is the only philosophy that needs to be
> >> defended?
> >
> >science is what we are discussing here. i am not attacking science, but
> >the idea that primordial soup theory passes the requirements of the
> >scientific method to become a scientific theory.
>
> Then you are attacking science or you are implying that the theory of
> evolution is contrived and does not use the scientifc method to draw
> its conclusions. I reject either propostion.
>
i have already said that i am not attacking science. i am also saying
that application of the scientific method in the case of primordial soup
theories is incomplete.
> >there is a hypothesis, but no conclusive experimental results.
>
> As I've noted before, there are many examples of theories that do not
> have experimental evidence to support them. That does not make the
> theories invalid or the conclusions drawn from them articles of faith.
>
electromagnetic theory above and nuclear theory below. devices which
use the principles of these theories are being produced and utilized.
this reflects that while the theories may not be completely understood
and certain suppositions unproven, there is sufficient knowledge to
implement them (experiments). no one has created life in the
laboratory.
> >when someone creates life in a test tube, then you will have a theory.
>
> That won't be long in coming.
subjectivity and wishful thinking. to say that something may eventually
be proven has no relevance on science today.
>
> BTW, how do you define life? Is a virus life?
>
something that is not in chemical equilibrium with its surroundings.
able to metabolize and reproduce on its own and grow.
i would say that since vruses are incapable of reproducing on their own
that they are not.
> >any other data is only evidence through supposition.
>
> Data is not supposition. Data is data.
data by itself means nothing. data requires interpretation to be
useful. anyone who has read data interpreted by a special interest
group knows that interpretation can often be subjective. scientific
examples are the piltdown hoax to a very large extent and ignoring
certain key data to conclude that life may exist on mars.
>
> >however, from a more philosophical standpoint, the
> >theory will still be inadequate because the true 'experiment' is
> >unrepeatable.
>
> And so is nuclear theory. Nuclear reactor design is based on the
> information derived from theories that cannot be proven through
> experiment. Nuclear reactors work regardless of the ability to prove
> each supposition.
if you build something based on a theory and it works, then that is an
experiment which lends favorable evidence to the theory and, until
different evidence appears, shows that the theory is viable.
nuclear theory says that nuclear events occur in some specific fashion.
primordial earth theory says that life originated in some specific
fashion. which one has been shown to work?
you say that someone who does not believe either attacks science. i say
that someone who believes the first, but not the second is more
realisitic about what science can do.
> >
> >you propose that science can know something that is impossible to know.
>
> Not so. I propose that science provides the best explanation for the
> observations at hand.
>
roughly 3.5 billion years of evidence of the origin of life is missing.
your ability to make observations is severly limited.
Ted Mooney
e.GSO.3.96.9707291...@mailey.chem.ufl.edu>
Reply-To: tmo...@intac.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plks-s9.intac.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
Xref: cornellcs sci.bio.ecology:33138 sci.chem:103385 sci.energy:74408 sci.environment:146825 sci.geo.geology:50201 sci.physics:278698
I *am* a neutral. I don't believe in God, but feel that religion has
been a *good* in the history of mankind, rather than the bad it is often
mischaracterized as. So I am not anxious to challenge those who believe.
But I still feel it is obvious that you can never ascertain metaphysical
reality, and whether it includes a God or not, from physical
observations. And it seems that those who feel it is very important to
teach the theory of evolution in science class, without the simple
disclaimer that it is a theory that can never be proven, are the ones
who are promoting an agenda.
Tom Davis
In article <33DE2C...@intac.com>, Ted Mooney <tmo...@intac.com> writes:
|> But I still feel it is obvious that you can never ascertain metaphysical
|> reality, and whether it includes a God or not, from physical
|> observations. And it seems that those who feel it is very important to
|> teach the theory of evolution in science class, without the simple
|> disclaimer that it is a theory that can never be proven, are the ones
|> who are promoting an agenda.
And do you also feel that the theory of electromagnetism and the theory
of gravity should not be taught without disclaimers either? After all,
they are only theories that can never be proven.
In fact, every subject in every class ought to have the same disclaimer,
right?
cbayse
Tom Davis wrote:
>
> And do you also feel that the theory of electromagnetism and the theory
> of gravity should not be taught without disclaimers either? After all,
> they are only theories that can never be proven.
>
> In fact, every subject in every class ought to have the same disclaimer,
> right?
move a compass around a live wire for a demo of em, though simple.
drop a ball for a demo of gravity.
when you can create life in a test tube, you can remove the disclaimer.
your examples have been verified in some fashion experimentally. origin
of life 'theories' have not been.
natural selection is ok to teach because there is lots of supporting
evidence (no disclaimer required). origin of life 'theories' are not
due to lack of any real evidence (and thus require disclaimers).
is it really necessary to teach origin of life in any form to kids?
isn't there something more important they should know? cut that week
out and study reproduction.
Rick Troendle
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Ted Mooney wrote::
:Rick Troendle wrote:
:> On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Ted Mooney wrote:
But desperate to disprove a God, it throws its
:> :own rules and common sense to the wind, trying to use physical
:> :observations to 'prove' metaphysical hypotheses. It should know better.
:> :
:> :'Equal time' probably should not consist of reading Genesis, but simply
:> :of saying "IF you believe in evolution, here is the fossil record, which
:> :can prove interesting and useful -- but there can never be anything in
:> :the fossil record that will prove evolution theory".
:> :
:>
:> Since when is science so desperate to disprove God? I for one believe in
:> God. The God I believe in may not be the same God that you believe in, but
:> I still believe in God. "It should know better," where the it is science.
:> Science does not know anything, science is not a person.
:> As far as equal time: why should science give equal time to religion (what
:> is what you are really talking about, not God) when religion is not going
:> to teach science in church. When I was young I learned about creation in
:> church and CCD, and I learned about evolution in science class. Then I was
:> able to join the two, reject one or the other, or whatever the hell I
:> wanted to do.
:> You say you are a neutral! Yet your answer says you are anything but.
:> =====================================
:
:I *am* a neutral. I don't believe in God, but feel that religion has
:been a *good* in the history of mankind, rather than the bad it is often
:mischaracterized as. So I am not anxious to challenge those who believe.
:But I still feel it is obvious that you can never ascertain metaphysical
:reality, and whether it includes a God or not, from physical
:observations. And it seems that those who feel it is very important to
:teach the theory of evolution in science class, without the simple
:disclaimer that it is a theory that can never be proven, are the ones
:who are promoting an agenda.
:
I did not say you could prove the existance of God. I stated that it is
absurd to say that science is desparate to disprove God. Science is not
desparate to disprove God. IMHO, science is proving the existance of God.
Every time science shows the complex and intricate nature in which
something behaves, this to me points to a force or guiding plan for the
universe (God)--remember I said that my version of God might not be the
same as yours.
Yes, I agree that religion has done some good, a lot in fact. I think that
religion was useful in moving people past a preoccupation with self to
higer and better things. But the people who have adminstrated religion
have been misirable, SOBs no better than any despot. If you say that on a
person to person basis religion has helped (physically) more people that
hurt, I would challenge that. I think we have had more wars, more
suffering, and more pain due to religion than any other cause. At the same
time science has relieved more suffering that anything else. BUT,
again let me say, I think that religion has helped humans achieve a
higher understanding of our place in existance. Religion has helped many
deal with pain, and has eased the suffering of many with the idea that
there is more out there than nothing.
The main source of friction between science and religion (IMHO) started
when science demystified religion coming out of the dark ages. Religious
leaders lost the mystic power they had and abused over people, and they
were plenty sore about it. That holds over to today. I have never, again
this is just me, heard a scientist say (as fact) that evolution proves
that creationism is wrong. I have many times heard a preacher say that
creationism (a totally literal interpetation of the Bible that God did it
all in six days) is fact and that evolution is wrong. I even heard a
preacher on national radio one day try to tell me that evolution was wrong
because it violated the second law of thermodynamics. I almost ran off the
road when I heard that one.
Evolution is as good a theory (which means that it provides a set of
rules with which a prediction can be made that explain why things are the
way they are) as any. I have never heard it taught as "The Fact of
Evolutioon", no always "The Theory of Evolution".I could not disagree more
with the statement that it is those trying to teach evolution that are
promoting an agenda. Are we then to teach the psychic network to are
children as an alternative in science class. No, science is for science. I
do not claim it has all the answers, I do not claim that it has any
answers for some people, but I believe that you devalue religion and
science at the same time when you attempt to intermingle the two so that
you feel better. Those that cannot balance science and religion, have a
problem, a problem that they need to work out on a personal level. They
can reject one, the other, both , or neither. But to degrade one or the
other so that all bases are covered, degrades all (again IMHO).
=====================================
Rick Troendle
"I have never claimed to know anything. I have only claimed to be willing
to learn."
Steve Spence
evolution is a religious belief! I have met no evolutionists that did not
believe in their theories with religious fervor, twisting facts to meet
their hopes. The public school system does not say "this is what we think
happened", they say "this is what happened". They must have been talking to
your psychics.
--
______________________________________
Steve Spence
ssp...@sequeltech.com
Http://www.sequeltech.com
Steve...@worldnet.att.net
Http://www.areaairduct.com/spence
MSMVP, MSDN, ClubIE
BetaID# 254651
ICQ 2063316
For definitions, answers, and how to - http://www.whatis.com
Windows 98 - Feature Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows95/info/memfeat.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/press/1997/Jul97/WIN98.htm
______________________________________
Nancy Ann Crosby wrote in article <5rldg1$n...@uwm.edu>...
shannon wagoner
kind of funny in griping about other people cross posting, you cross
posted, i guess it is easier to preach a good semon than to live a
good life.
On 25 Jul 1997 22:41:27 GMT ( ger...@hawaii.edu (Gerard Fryer) )
wrote:
shannon wagoner
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:29:11 GMT ( muld...@ix.netcom.com (Brian
Mueller) ) wrote:
>This is why God is not observable by ordinary means.
but he is observable.
Scott Nudds
Steve Spence (steve...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: evolution is a religious belief! I have met no evolutionists that did not
: believe in their theories with religious fervor, twisting facts to meet
: their hopes.
Evolution has been observed. Creation has not.
Wm James
On Sat, 02 Aug 1997 03:49:33 GMT, sha...@som-uky.campus.mci.net
(shannon wagoner) wrote:
:On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:29:11 GMT ( muld...@ix.netcom.com (Brian
:Mueller) ) wrote:
:>This is why God is not observable by ordinary means.
:
:but he is observable.
Then show it to us. There will no longer be any question and we
atheists will be no more.
Note: I use "it" instead of "he" because if there is a god and
only one god. and it is self existent, it would have no use for a
penis. Having useless organs would make it less than perfect.
William R. James
(sorry for responding, this is off topic for this group.)
Harry H Conover
shannon wagoner (sha...@som-uky.campus.mci.net) wrote:
: On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 19:29:11 GMT ( muld...@ix.netcom.com (Brian
: Mueller) ) wrote:
: >This is why God is not observable by ordinary means.
:
: but he is observable.
Please elaborate.
Harry C.
Scott Nudds
: :but he is observable.
Wm James (sp...@here.not) wrote:
: Then show it to us.
Take a dollar out of your pocket Libertarian James. That is your God
isn't it?
Wm James
On 3 Aug 1997 17:04:30 GMT, af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott
Nudds) wrote:
:: :but he is observable.
At least it is real, Marxist Nudds. Now you have called a
Liberatarian one who favors a strong military presence over the
globe. Still can't fit me into one of you peg holes, can you?
Liberatarian is much closer than conservative, however. So you
may be capable of learning after all. ( It seems to take a while,
though)
William R. James
Tom Davis
In article <33E197...@isc.tamu.edu>, cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu> writes:
|> Tom Davis wrote:
|> >
|> > And do you also feel that the theory of electromagnetism and the theory
|> > of gravity should not be taught without disclaimers either? After all,
|> > they are only theories that can never be proven.
|> >
|> > In fact, every subject in every class ought to have the same disclaimer,
|> > right?
|>
|> move a compass around a live wire for a demo of em, though simple.
|> drop a ball for a demo of gravity.
|> when you can create life in a test tube, you can remove the disclaimer.
But there's no guarantee that the e&m and gravitational theories are
correct. We thought Newton was right for hundreds of years, then along
came Einstein. No, I think we need disclaimers here too.
|> your examples have been verified in some fashion experimentally. origin
|> of life 'theories' have not been.
First off, many people do not include origin of life theories in the
theory of evolution. Evolution refers to change once life somehow gets
started, and abiogenesis refers to the generation of the first living
thing. The usual Chrisitan right argument is against all evolutionary
and abiogenetic theories.
While it's clearly tougher to do experiments and gather evidence about the
origin of life, it's not impossible.
The Miller-Urey experiment shows that if you start with CO2, H2O,
and ammonia and spark it with electric discharges, it doesn't take too
long to make amino acids.
There are some relatively simple chemicals which, when put in a batch of
the correct precursors, reproduce themselves.
There are lots of theories about abiogenesis -- was it originally
protein? RNA? Something else? All are extremely speculative, and I
have never seen any resonable discussion of them that did not emphasize
the huge amount of speculation involved.
Can you point me to a high-school biology text that definatively states
that abiogenesis occurred and how it occurred without such disclaimers?
I doubt any exist. In fact, I'll bet the majority don't even mention
the idea for fear of the religious right, and there is great pressure to
include a large disclaimer on the theory that the earth is more than
6000 years old and that any evolution (in my sense, above) has occurred.
|> natural selection is ok to teach because there is lots of supporting
|> evidence (no disclaimer required). origin of life 'theories' are not
|> due to lack of any real evidence (and thus require disclaimers).
I claim there's a little evidence, and I admit that abiogenesis theories
are on much shakier ground than evolutionary theories. But I'll bet you
have a hard time finding a high-school text book that makes strong
claims for any particular theory of abiogenesis.
|> is it really necessary to teach origin of life in any form to kids?
|> isn't there something more important they should know? cut that week
|> out and study reproduction.
My God! Not reproduction! They'll all become sex perverts :^)
Besides, I'll bet there's not more than a paragraph or two on
abiogenesis in most texts if it appears at all. I doubt they spend a
week on it.
Steve Spence
no, evolution has not been observed. processes have been observed, or
better yet, evidence of processes, that have been incorrectly assumed to be
evolutionary in nature.
--
______________________________________
Steve Spence
ssp...@sequeltech.com
Http://www.sequeltech.com
Steve...@worldnet.att.net
Http://www.areaairduct.com/spence
MSMVP, MSDN, ClubIE
BetaID# 254651
ICQ 2063316
For definitions, answers, and how to - http://www.whatis.com
Windows 98 - Feature Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows95/info/memfeat.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/press/1997/Jul97/WIN98.htm
______________________________________
Scott Nudds wrote in article <5rvb3m$3e9$2...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>...
Josh
It would seem to me that since the universe is inarguably expanding (i.e.
background microwave radiation, red Doppler shifts, etc.), it was either
"big banged" into existence or created to seem that way. Whether or not it
ACUTALLY DID is irrelevant. If a tree actually grew to have many rings, or
if it was created to have many rings, what is the difference? Neither
position can be argued with any more validity than the other.
Steve Spence <steve...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<5s5v62$5...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>...
Lesley
an open invitation to post MORE completely off-topic rants.
--
*******************************************************
My home page:
http://www.people.memphis.edu/~lgunther/home.htm
*******************************************************
Jim Carr
Note appropriate followup for this discussion.
Tom Davis wrote:
}
} And do you also feel that the theory of electromagnetism and the theory
} of gravity should not be taught without disclaimers either? After all,
} they are only theories that can never be proven.
}
} In fact, every subject in every class ought to have the same disclaimer,
} right?
cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu> writes:
>
>move a compass around a live wire for a demo of em, though simple.
>drop a ball for a demo of gravity.
You would still need a disclaimer, since the Creationists claim
these things have changed over time to try to explain away all of
the data that contradicts their beliefs about the earth.
>when you can create life in a test tube, you can remove the disclaimer.
Evolution is not about the creation of life, it is about how
species change with time. This has been demonstrated in the
lab as well as observed in the real world. Bacteria that must
have antibiotics to live are a classic example.
>natural selection is ok to teach because there is lots of supporting
>evidence (no disclaimer required). origin of life 'theories' are not
>due to lack of any real evidence (and thus require disclaimers).
Creationists do not want anything taught that conflicts with their
belief in a 6000 year old earth. That includes evolution by natural
selection. They are as opposed to a theory that says life was
created billions of years ago as they are to one that says it
arose naturally at that time. Sometimes more opposed, because an
old earth creation idea comes from a Christian who reads the Bible
differently than they do rather than from a secular humanist.
Fred McGalliard
Marc Donovan wrote:
> We see examples of organisms changing over generations as the environment
> changes. This is the definition of evolution.
You know you are probably right. There is no question that the term
evolution describes the changes in the nature of the world population of
living things over time. As a descriptive term, it contains no
information at all about cause and only addresses the fact of the
change, which can be at least partly examined. This is in conflict only
with the position that once created species cannot change.
> Evolution is not a theory about creation. It says nothing about the genesis of
> life. There is no conflict here.
Evolution the theory presumes that evolution the observed fact can be
explained by a fairly simple mechanism interacting with an inordinantly
complex system. Mutation produces changes in individuals which if they
survive may, under "favorable" conditions, become the slightly modified
"new" population of the species. Given enough time, good luck or it's
equivelant, and at least one possible path, and a successful new species
will arise. This has never been proved, nor has the science been
developed to make it into testable experiments. For all we know now it
could be true that this process cannot yield speciation except in
contrived cases. No, I do not think that God has to place every
variation of yeast on the earth by direct intervention. I do think that
we really don't understand what is going on, and we won't as long as we
claim we know it already. Of course this is just my rather silly
opinion. You get that way when you are over 50.
karl
In article <33DED8...@isc.tamu.edu>, cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu> wrote:
snip
> >
> > >> But I am willing to reject the theory if one is presented that
> > >> describes the data better than the present one.
> > >>
> > >
> > >you have accepted primordial soup theory without any evidence.
> >
> > Where did you get that?
> >
> > >i am willing to accept primordial soup theory if i am given some
> > >experimental evidence for it.
> >
> > I'll get you the name of the experiment.
> >
>
> please do.
>
more snips
> >
> > I must have misunderstood your earlier assertion. If you are
> > proposing that hard evidence of a primordial soup will disprove its
> > existance, then we disagree again.
> >
>
> i am proposing that hard evidence *against* a primordial soup theory
> will disprove it.
>
and some more snips
> > >
> > >my entire point on this discussion has been that primordial soup theory
*****************************************************************************
So much for soup quotes. Perhaps this will help in the primordial GUE debate.
Quote from, Darwins Black Box. by, Michael Behe, page 169-170
Moreover, joining many amino acids together to form a protein with a
useful biological activity is a much more difficult chemical problem than
forming amino acids in the first place. The major problem in hooking
amino acids together is that, chemically, it involves the removal of a
molecule of water from each amino acid joined to the growing protein
chain. Conversely, the presence of water strongly inhibits amino acids
from forming proteins. Because water is so abundant on the earth, and
because amino acids dissolve readily in water, origin-of-life researchers
have been forced to propose unusual scenarios to get around the water
problem.
In Robert Shapiro's book, Origins, a skeptics guide to the creation of
life on earth, pages 173 and 174 you will find a similar explanation to
what Behe wrote. Shapiro is a Professor of Chemistry at New York U and an
expert on DNA research and on the genetic effects of environmental
chemicals.
This is part of what Shapiro wrote: Water happily attacks large biological
molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other, breaks
sugar-to-phosphate bonds,and severs bases from sugar. (The book goes on to
talk about how we developed a means to defend against the water then
continues with:) On the early earth, such defenses didn't exist. Water
continually opposed the assembly of large biomolecule and attacked those
that successfully formed. Yet it is the task of the prebiotic chemist to
demonstrate that such molecules could be formed. Much as he would like to
, he cannot employ Grignardtype conditions. He must settle for much
evasive maneuvers. (end quote)
--
+++++++++++++
see ya,
karl
+++++++++++++
The evidence for evolution is found in the "GAPS"
and currently is filled in with biased imagination,
speculation and plaster of paris.
karl
In article <5rt0qm$h...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, "Steve Spence"
<steve...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> evolution is a religious belief! I have met no evolutionists that did not
> believe in their theories with religious fervor, twisting facts to meet
> their hopes. The public school system does not say "this is what we think
> happened", they say "this is what happened". They must have been talking to
> your psychics.
>
The creation/flood model is shown to be a working model using science. The
beginings of the heavens and the earth are presented in Genesis. The next
step is to use science to see if it could be true. Using science, it has
been shown that it very well could have happened that way. The creationist
have the advantage because they know how it all started and they have the
science to demonstrate how the models work.
Evolution is based squarely on *faith*. *Faith* that the stuff in the big
bang appreared out of no where then exploded. *Faith* that the dead stuff
in a puddle of GUE came to life and slowly evolved into us. *Faith* that
their fossil records with the major gaps actually show evolution.
Evolution is not a proven fact. It is based on the *faith* that certain
events happened.
The evolutionist are trying to use scientific techniques to justify their
*faith*. On the same hand, so are the creationist. But, thats ok.
Frank Harrison
cbayse <cba...@isc.tamu.edu> wrote:
> is it really necessary to teach origin of life in any form to kids?
> isn't there something more important they should know? cut that week
> out and study reproduction.
Really. Who cares about the how and why of how dirt got up and started
walking around.
Frank Harrison
Frank Harrison
"Josh" <pai...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> It would seem to me that since the universe is inarguably expanding (i.e.
> background microwave radiation, red Doppler shifts, etc.), it was either
> "big banged" into existence or created to seem that way. Whether or not it
> ACUTALLY DID is irrelevant. If a tree actually grew to have many rings, or
> if it was created to have many rings, what is the difference? Neither
> position can be argued with any more validity than the other.
I have yet to see ANY mature tree simply pop into existence. I have watched
many trees grow over periods of years.
Frank Harrison
Marc Donovan
Fred McGalliard <frederick.b...@boeing.com> wrote:
>Marc Donovan wrote:
>> Evolution is not a theory about creation. It says nothing about the genesis of
>> life. There is no conflict here.
>Evolution the theory presumes that evolution the observed fact can be
>explained by a fairly simple mechanism interacting with an inordinantly
>complex system. Mutation produces changes in individuals which if they
>survive may, under "favorable" conditions, become the slightly modified
The common assumption that the new mutant must survive where its peers
die is not the correct idea. The only requirement is that it allows
the mutant to take better advantage of its resources. The advantage
need only be slight.
>"new" population of the species. Given enough time, good luck or it's
>equivelant, and at least one possible path, and a successful new species
>will arise. This has never been proved, nor has the science been
>developed to make it into testable experiments. For all we know now it
>could be true that this process cannot yield speciation except in
>contrived cases.
The reason for this is the definition of "species." I am not a
biologist, and one may correct me here, but a species is defined as a
group of organisms that have the ability to interbreed. This
definition implies a sexual organism. This leads one to ask what
defines a species if the organisms in question are asexual. I think
the line here is rather arbitrary.
The other part is that sexual creatures live long lives. The shortest
I can think of being annual. So, in order to observe the effects of
these slight changes in sexual creatures it would take millions of
years. And nobody I can think of has that much time or funding to do
such an experiment.
The question here is why is it neccessary to show a new species? Why
is that the make or break argument? It's a rather arbitrary category
biologists invented to put things in convenient slots.
>No, I do not think that God has to place every
>variation of yeast on the earth by direct intervention. I do think that
>we really don't understand what is going on, and we won't as long as we
>claim we know it already. Of course this is just my rather silly
>opinion. You get that way when you are over 50.
My opinions will look silly to some I can bet, so you're on even
ground here.
But lets just build some axioms and see where they go. This is bad
science and it doesn't prove anything, but what the hey...
1. Oragnisms mutate.
Everyone can accept this. I hope.
2. If a mutation allows an organism to get more food, on average,
this organism will live longer than his peers.
He should be healthier if he doesn't over-eat.
3. Being healthier and having a longer life, he will have more
opportunities to reproduce than his peers.
4. Having more opportunities to reproduce, he will have more
offspring than his peers.
Assuming he picks good mates :-)
5. His offspring will have this same mutation.
Subject to recombinant properties of course.
6. These offspring will have the same advantage as papa.
7. 1 thru 5 will apply to these offspring too.
8. Eventually, this "good" gene will be recombined into the group.
9. This will most likely happen with every "good" trait that causes 1
thru 5 to apply.
10. If you isolate a batch of these organisms, these mutations will
cause a divergence of the respective gene pools.
Since they cannot recombine the genes.
And since the changes are random.
Now, the question is: How many generations do we need before we can
state that these are different organisms?
We don't know for sure that this is what happens, because it happens
on the level of a single organism and effects the whole population.
This is the realm of chaos theory, which we are not very good with
yet. Its like saying we know a river flows because we see a rain drop
hit the ground.
We can however watch the composite effect in the lab. We can isolate
bacteria and watch them diverge with each generation.
Marc Donovan Home of the:
10-4 Systems Office Wizard - Office Management System
8401 9th St. N. Suite E AMS - Pesticide Tracking System
St Petersburg, FL 33702 www.OfficeWizard.com
(813)579-0000 ma...@OfficeWizard.spam.com
karl
In article <5sfnt7$nhe$1...@news.cftnet.com>, ma...@OfficeWizard.spam.com
(Marc Donovan) wrote:
snip
Geneticist have been breeding fruit flies for more than 60 years in labs
all around the world. These Drosophila produce a new generation every 11
days while this quick reproduction allows a scientist to observe the
effects over many,many generations.
Scientist have even in some cases used x-ray radiation to deliberately
cause mutations in the fruit flies.
The hopes of these experiments are that you could explain everything that
occured over millions of years in evolution and that the slow gradual
sequential substitution of genes within local populations, would be
demonstrated clearly. In other words, One would think you would see a new
species from a new genera emerge or a new enzyme emerge, but they didn't.
As a matter of fact, after a mutation the next generation typically
reverted back to the original fruitfly. It seems as if scientist have
demonstrated that there is a limited amount of variation permitted within
the permanently fixed kinds.
In the end, the fruit fly was still a fruit fly.
>
>
>
>
> Marc Donovan Home of the:
> 10-4 Systems Office Wizard - Office Management System
> 8401 9th St. N. Suite E AMS - Pesticide Tracking System
> St Petersburg, FL 33702 www.OfficeWizard.com
> (813)579-0000 ma...@OfficeWizard.spam.com
--
Scott Nudds
(Scott Nudds) wrote:
: : Take a dollar out of your pocket Libertarian James. That is your God
: :isn't it?
(Wm James) wrote:
: At least it is real, Marxist Nudds.
We have now established that the money is God to Libertarian Wm James.
--
<---->
Jon Robert Crofoot
Marxists can't sit down together, shut up for a bit, and
agree that both their points of view are extreme positions
on the "Anarchist - Totalitarian" spectrum. The challenge
is to find an intermediate position of government influence
that will provide the best environment for the citizens.
Neither unrestricted individualism nor government control
of production will work. Only a proper blend will.
Marc Donovan
ks...@fast.net (karl) wrote:
>Geneticist have been breeding fruit flies for more than 60 years in labs
>all around the world. These Drosophila produce a new generation every 11
>days while this quick reproduction allows a scientist to observe the
>effects over many,many generations.
>Scientist have even in some cases used x-ray radiation to deliberately
>cause mutations in the fruit flies.
>The hopes of these experiments are that you could explain everything that
>occured over millions of years in evolution and that the slow gradual
>sequential substitution of genes within local populations, would be
>demonstrated clearly. In other words, One would think you would see a new
>species from a new genera emerge or a new enzyme emerge, but they didn't.
>As a matter of fact, after a mutation the next generation typically
>reverted back to the original fruitfly. It seems as if scientist have
>demonstrated that there is a limited amount of variation permitted within
>the permanently fixed kinds.
So you are telling me that whenever there was a mutation, the
succeeding generations had an opposite mutation. So that I should
resemble my grandfather. Do you look more like your grandparents or
more like your parents?
>In the end, the fruit fly was still a fruit fly.
The hypothesis is that major changes can only be observed after
millions of generations. 11 days * 1 million generations = 30,136
years of experimenting. Also, most theories propose that the major
diffences are from divergence by isolation. Did these guys do that
here?
The lack of evidence does not force the conclusion that something does
not exist. Example: Just because we can't see God, does not mean He
does not exist.
karl
In article <5si72b$atq$1...@news.cftnet.com>, ma...@OfficeWizard.spam.com
(Marc Donovan) wrote:
> ks...@fast.net (karl) wrote:
> >Geneticist have been breeding fruit flies for more than 60 years in labs
> >all around the world. These Drosophila produce a new generation every 11
> >days while this quick reproduction allows a scientist to observe the
> >effects over many,many generations.
> >Scientist have even in some cases used x-ray radiation to deliberately
> >cause mutations in the fruit flies.
> >The hopes of these experiments are that you could explain everything that
> >occured over millions of years in evolution and that the slow gradual
> >sequential substitution of genes within local populations, would be
> >demonstrated clearly. In other words, One would think you would see a new
> >species from a new genera emerge or a new enzyme emerge, but they didn't.
> >As a matter of fact, after a mutation the next generation typically
> >reverted back to the original fruitfly. It seems as if scientist have
> >demonstrated that there is a limited amount of variation permitted within
> >the permanently fixed kinds.
>
> So you are telling me that whenever there was a mutation, the
> succeeding generations had an opposite mutation. So that I should
> resemble my grandfather. Do you look more like your grandparents or
> more like your parents?
OH THAT'S RIGHT I forgot that you have 6 fingers on your hands, two hearts
and an antenna sticking out of the top of your head.
But then again you don't look like your Grand-pa do you.
>
> >In the end, the fruit fly was still a fruit fly.
>
> The hypothesis is that major changes can only be observed after
> millions of generations. 11 days * 1 million generations = 30,136
> years of experimenting. Also, most theories propose that the major
> diffences are from divergence by isolation. Did these guys do that
> here?
>
> The lack of evidence does not force the conclusion that something does
> not exist. Example: Just because we can't see God, does not mean He
> does not exist.
>
>
>
>
>
> Marc Donovan Home of the:
> 10-4 Systems Office Wizard - Office Management System
> 8401 9th St. N. Suite E AMS - Pesticide Tracking System
> St Petersburg, FL 33702 www.OfficeWizard.com
> (813)579-0000 ma...@OfficeWizard.spam.com
--
Roni Choudhury
Marc Donovan wrote:
>
> ks...@fast.net (karl) wrote:
> >Geneticist have been breeding fruit flies for more than 60 years in labs
> >all around the world. These Drosophila produce a new generation every 11
> >days while this quick reproduction allows a scientist to observe the
> >effects over many,many generations.
> >Scientist have even in some cases used x-ray radiation to deliberately
> >cause mutations in the fruit flies.
> >The hopes of these experiments are that you could explain everything that
> >occured over millions of years in evolution and that the slow gradual
> >sequential substitution of genes within local populations, would be
> >demonstrated clearly. In other words, One would think you would see a new
> >species from a new genera emerge or a new enzyme emerge, but they didn't.
> >As a matter of fact, after a mutation the next generation typically
> >reverted back to the original fruitfly. It seems as if scientist have
> >demonstrated that there is a limited amount of variation permitted within
> >the permanently fixed kinds.
Karl is wrong because the mutation procured by the scientists wasn't a
*useful* mutation. In all probablity, it was harmful. This fly dies
easily because it is harmed in some way. It doesn't live long enough to
reproduce. The muation is not passed on. But suppose the mutation gave
the fly the ability to instantly kill anything that was attacking it
(you know, by having it secrete lethal posion as a sympathetic nervous
system reaction, or something). Now, the fly finds it easier to survive
and to procreate. The genetics of this ability are passed on to all of
the fly's offspring. In the next generation, chances are, these flies
will survive, while the "regular" flies die quickly (because predators
will learn to leave the superflies alone). Meanwhile, the superflies
procreate, creating many more superflies. Pretty soon, the last regular
fly dies, leaving only superflies. The only living fruitflies have this
"superkill" trait ingrained in their genetic structure. If you allow an
alien scientist group to observe these flies, they will write about this
factor in their human biology textbooks. The mayflies have evolved.
As with an example I gave previously, this is *highly* simplified, but
it serves to show how the overall mechanism works. You can see how
nature fosters the "good" mutations, while eliminating the "bad" ones.
The problem with labwork is that 99.99999999+% of all the mutations
which occur are simple like, being born without wings, in other words, a
harmful mutation.
karl
Do you write comic books on the side? ....all that from one mutating fruit fly.
Now, the fly finds it easier to survive
> and to procreate. The genetics of this ability are passed on to all of
> the fly's offspring. In the next generation, chances are, these flies
> will survive, while the "regular" flies die quickly (because predators
> will learn to leave the superflies alone). Meanwhile, the superflies
> procreate, creating many more superflies. Pretty soon, the last regular
> fly dies, leaving only superflies. The only living fruitflies have this
> "superkill" trait ingrained in their genetic structure. If you allow an
> alien scientist group to observe these flies, they will write about this
> factor in their human biology textbooks. The mayflies have evolved.
>
> As with an example I gave previously, this is *highly* simplified, but
> it serves to show how the overall mechanism works. You can see how
> nature fosters the "good" mutations, while eliminating the "bad" ones.
> The problem with labwork is that 99.99999999+% of all the mutations
> which occur are simple like, being born without wings, in other words, a
> harmful mutation.
--
Eric Lucas
Roni Choudhury wrote:
>
> Marc Donovan wrote:
> >
> > ks...@fast.net (karl) wrote:
> > >Geneticist have been breeding fruit flies for more than 60 years in labs
> > >all around the world. These Drosophila produce a new generation every 11
> > >days while this quick reproduction allows a scientist to observe the
> > >effects over many,many generations.
> > >Scientist have even in some cases used x-ray radiation to deliberately
> > >cause mutations in the fruit flies.
> > >The hopes of these experiments are that you could explain everything that
> > >occured over millions of years in evolution and that the slow gradual
> > >sequential substitution of genes within local populations, would be
> > >demonstrated clearly. In other words, One would think you would see a new
> > >species from a new genera emerge or a new enzyme emerge, but they didn't.
> > >As a matter of fact, after a mutation the next generation typically
> > >reverted back to the original fruitfly. It seems as if scientist have
> > >demonstrated that there is a limited amount of variation permitted within
> > >the permanently fixed kinds.
>
> Karl is wrong because the mutation procured by the scientists wasn't a
> *useful* mutation. In all probablity, it was harmful. This fly dies
> easily because it is harmed in some way. It doesn't live long enough to
> reproduce. The muation is not passed on.
I don't think that's really germane to the discussion. Numerous
generations was a given in the experiment. The reason it takes millions
of generations for new species emergence is that, in a random set of
mutations, very few are useful. Many are harmful, but by far most have
little effect. However, given enough generations, and given enough
evolutionary pressure (natural selection), useful mutations occur and
are passed on. Mutations are, by nature, random, no matter whether they
are caused in nature by cosmic rays, or in the lab by UV light.
I think what's critical in this case is the lack of much evolutionary
pressure in the lab. As far as I know, in lab experiments, the subjects
are kept largely away from predators, and are given plenty of food,
etc. Hardly a realistic environment in which evolution can take place,
is it? If a fly doesn't have to evade predators or compete for limited
resources, then why would such an environment favor survival of an
animal that shows a mutation that allows it to do one of those things
better?
Seems to me it would be pretty difficult to design an experiment to test
the general notion of natural selection, as setting up an environment
with just the right amount of evolutionary pressure would be pretty
difficult. For example, too many predators and the subjects all get
eaten. Too few and you don't get any driving force for natural
selection.
Having said that, there are documentable mutations that have largely
taken hold in the human population, even with one person's lifetime.
For example, when I was a kid, my superannuated dentist said that, when
he first started practicing (probably in the 1930s), he commonly saw
people with two sets of wisdom teeth, with one set being most common,
and none being very, very rare. When I was his patient (in the 1970s),
he commented that he almost never saw people with two sets any more, and
people with no sets of wisdom teeth were much more common. Clearly,
from his experience, the average number of wisdom teeth per patient was
decreasing. It's not clear to me what might have caused this, but if
his experience was representative (sure, it may not have been), this was
a change that was occuring in the population. One could postulate that
there is evolutionary pressure to decrease the number of troublesome,
easily infected vestigial teeth that serve little unique purpose.
I have no idea if this phenomenon has been observed in the population at
large, but I suspect we may not have to look too hard to find other
observable examples of evolution. Drug-resistant bacteria, for
example. Or disease-resistant species in general (although I suppose
most of these are created by man by selective breeding). I think the
case to be made for observable evolution is fairly strong, and the
extent of the faith involved isn't the same in this case as it is in the
case of creation.
Eric Lucas
Jonathan Stone
[Karl Crawford is well-known on talk.origins, where over several
months, Karl has demonstrated inability to follow arithmetic at, for
example, the level required to fill out a 1040EZ form. Either that,
or he's the all-time Grendel of trollers. Karl, this belongs in
talk.origins; it's a violation of netiquette to troll this tripe
elsewhere. Follow-ups set.]
In article <ksjj-09089...@max1-19.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
> In article <5si72b$atq$1...@news.cftnet.com>, ma...@OfficeWizard.spam.com
> (Marc Donovan) wrote:
[karl text snipped]
> > So you are telling me that whenever there was a mutation, the
> > succeeding generations had an opposite mutation. So that I should
> > resemble my grandfather. Do you look more like your grandparents or
> > more like your parents?
>
> OH THAT'S RIGHT I forgot that you have 6 fingers on your hands, two hearts
> and an antenna sticking out of the top of your head.
Partly right, Karl. Yes, Polydacty *does* happen.
You can look it up in an encyclopedia if you wish; start with Anne
Boleyn and then find out where it's flourishing in the human genome
today.
Roni Choudhury
> Do you write comic books on the side? ....all that from one mutating fruit fly.
No, I'll repeat myself...again. I said in my original post that the
example I gave was purposefully a reality stretch so i could give you a
simple example of evolution. My point was that the mutation I described
simply *could not* happen in a lab, and so it is faulty reasoning for
you to claim that evolution cannot happen because it doesn't happen in
the lab. Also, i didn't mean to say that evolution can come about from
*one* fruit fly. It takes several flies to mutate to cause evolutionary
process to begin. Evolution is a slooooooow process. Helpful mutations
aren't as drastic as the one i made up, and they don't happen that
often. BTW, I don't believe i descended from an ape. And neither does
anyone else that believes in evolution. The actual belief is that apes
and we have similar origins, not that we came from them. This is the
most common misconception there is about evolution.
Steve Spence
It's called conservatism ;-)
--
______________________________________
Steve Spence
ssp...@sequeltech.com
Http://www.sequeltech.com
Steve...@worldnet.att.net
Http://www.areaairduct.com/spence
MSMVP, MSDN, ClubIE
BetaID# 254651
ICQ 2063316
For definitions, answers, and how to - http://www.whatis.com
Windows 98 - Feature Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows95/info/memfeat.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/press/1997/Jul97/WIN98.htm
______________________________________
Jon Robert Crofoot wrote in article
<5sif8j$f...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>...
Rich Lemert
karl wrote:
> The creation/flood model is shown to be a working model using science. The
> beginings of the heavens and the earth are presented in Genesis. The next
> step is to use science to see if it could be true. Using science, it has
> been shown that it very well could have happened that way.
So what? It could also have happened in quite a number of other ways
too. The trees outside my window _could_ have been planted by space
aliens - does this mean they were?
? The creationist
> have the advantage because they know how it all started and they have the
> science to demonstrate how the models work.
If they "have all the answers" before hand then they are not doing
science, they are rationalizing.
sing...@teleport.com
In article <5rfu08$mqq$1...@news.fsu.edu>, j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
wrote:
:G <gr...@foo.icanect.net> writes:
:>
:>First, I think you are confusing the word 'science' with the word 'fact'.
:>Science is all about coming up with and testing out new theories.
:
: Correct. It is also about accepting the results of those tests.
:
:>Second, I agree that both "theories" should be taught in school.
:
: Why should a religion be taught in science class?
But much of what passes for science fills the bill for a religion -
meaning that much of your axiomatic foundations and assumptions cannot be
made subject to the experimental method so that it really isn't science
after all but rather a bunch of arm waving (what you call a religion).
: Why should children be confused by unsupported assertions that
: radioactive decay rates
Why should they be lied to and told that decay rates are constant when we
know good and well that one of the attributes of a gravitational field is
that it is a 'time-gradient' field which means that decay rates can change
with depth. Why should we lie to them and tell them that the matter for
the earth was derived from a pre-existing cloud of 'cosmic dust grains'
and the effect of that cloud when hit with the explosive shock of a nearby
supernova. We don't have evidence of either one but you are willing to
teach it as if it were exactly true. You are an arm waving hypocrite who
hasn't the moral character to define the difference between what we know
for sure and what we have conjectured and made up. You are willing to
promote your religion which effectively is an intellectual invention
(meaning that it is no different in quality or kind than a carved stone
god or one fashioned from wood and gilded with gold). You look to
science to save your miserable life and attempt to divorce GOD from
science on the grounds that GOD or faith is not scientific while the horse
puckey invented by 'scientists' is.
: and the speed of light change with time
: to suit their reading of Genesis? Should physics be based on
: experiment or religion?
Damn rights. Let's base it purely on experiment and if you will allow
that then you have to admit the collapse of most of modern science. Don't
ever use this statement unless you are willing to abide by it 100 percent,
otherwise you are the worse kind of hypocrite which unaware of his own
duplicity.
:>Let the
:>children decide for themselves. I think they will prove to be a lot more
:>intelligent than most people would think.
Now there is an ignorant statement if ever there was one. Children will
mostly believe what their parents and teachers tell them. They don't
normally have a compass to discern truth and they readily believe all
manner of lies like Santa Claus and Easter Bunny.
Show them creationism and all the
:>"evidence" in favor of it. Then show the evolution and all its evidence.
Why not show them the truth?
Singtech
Joseph Zorzin
sing...@teleport.com wrote:
>
> In article <33DDF3...@forestmeister.com>, Joseph Zorzin
> <red...@forestmeister.com> wrote:
>
> :crs wrote:
> :
> :> Now I have a question for all you dyed-in-the-wool creationites out
> there. What data -
> :> what evidence will convince you to abandon your misplaced literalist
> faith in the pleasent
> :> poetry of Genesis?
>
> What evidence (since you don't know what the hell evidence really is in
> the first place) would it take for you to abandon your misplaced
> literalist faith in foundational assumptions of geology, cosmology and
> physics which cannot even be made subject to experimental confirmation?
> You practice a religion yourself you damnable fraud but you aren't smart
> enough to figure it out on your own.
>
> :> If your tactic is to come to your conclusion first and look for
> :> rhetorical inconsistancies in competing theories, you are not
> practicing science.
>
> Ah! But that is what science does. Come to a conclusion first. Then
> they gather in only the data that seems to confirm their paradigm often
> ignoring mountains which destroy it. Modern science is a house of very
> lumpy carpets because of the quantity of things swept under them.
>
> There is
> :> not one scintilla of evidence supporting creationism and yet you want
> to teach it in the
> :> schools as another "equivalent theory." Where is your honesty?
>
> This is pure tripe statement indicating you are completely ignorant of the
> meaning of the concept of evidence.
>
> :> Chuck Szmanda
> :> chu...@ultranet.com
> :
> :The issue of honesty is the critical one here. When I knew nothing about
> :geology, I read some creationist literature and it sounded very good. It
> :sounded technical and there seemed to be some good arguments. Then I
> :read a dozen or so college level geology books. Then I reread the
> :creationist listerature and it was obvious to me that the authors really
> :understood geology pretty well, enough to use the lingo but the logic
> :and lingo of geology were obviously twisted to confuse those who know
> :nothing of the science (most people).
>
> Many creationists are completely ignorant of the religion that they
> espouse and are often conned into playing by some very cocked rules which
> modern science has erected but doesn't abide by herself. Creationists
> often lose going both ways, often they don't understand their own religion
> and they don't truly understand the fallacies inherent in the way science
> is conducted today. So they end up looking like saps because they are
> playing in a rigged game. If they really knew GOD they would know how to
> unrig the game and how to do real science all the while being led by the
> real GOD of all the cosmos.
>
> Men who think they can seperate GOD from physics will excel in a knowledge
> of neither.
>
> Singtech
Just for the record, my name is at the top of the above statement as if
I said any of what follows, but I didn't. The chain of "who said what"
isn't correct. I may have said something previously in this thread, but
whatever I said is not in singtech's mindless regurgitation.
Nathan Urban
> In article <5rfu08$mqq$1...@news.fsu.edu>, j...@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
> wrote:
> : Why should a religion be taught in science class?
> But much of what passes for science fills the bill for a religion -
> meaning that much of your axiomatic foundations and assumptions cannot be
> made subject to the experimental method so that it really isn't science
> after all but rather a bunch of arm waving (what you call a religion).
The difference is that science does not claim to be perfect, and if a
new theory comes along that is better, the old one gets discarded.
That's the difference between science and religion.
> : Why should children be confused by unsupported assertions that
> : radioactive decay rates
> Why should they be lied to and told that decay rates are constant when we
> know good and well that one of the attributes of a gravitational field is
> that it is a 'time-gradient' field which means that decay rates can change
> with depth.
If you knew anything at all about general relativity, you'd know that
the Earth's gravitational field makes a totally negligible contribution
to radioactive decay rates, even over geological time spans.
> Why should we lie to them and tell them that the matter for
> the earth was derived from a pre-existing cloud of 'cosmic dust grains'
> and the effect of that cloud when hit with the explosive shock of a nearby
> supernova.
That's not a "lie". That's a "theory". It would be a lie if the theory
had been conclusively disproven.
> We don't have evidence of either one but you are willing to
> teach it as if it were exactly true.
No, merely as the best scientific theory we have at the time.
> :>Show them creationism and all the
> :>"evidence" in favor of it. Then show the evolution and all its evidence.
> Why not show them the truth?
You can't show them the truth. You can only show them what you believe
to be the truth. What any intellectually honest person would do is show
them the evidence for/against either theory and let them choose for
themselves.
R. Tang
In article <singtech-130...@ip-salem2-22.teleport.com>,
<sing...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>: Why should children be confused by unsupported assertions that
>: radioactive decay rates
>
>Why should they be lied to and told that decay rates are constant when we
>know good and well that one of the attributes of a gravitational field is
>that it is a 'time-gradient' field which means that decay rates can change
>with depth.
That's funny. They TRIED changing it with depth and pressure and
guess what? Radioactive decay rates don't change.
By the way....try reading some modern day physics; any effect of
the earth's gravitational field on time is non-existent on something in
the field.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
http://www.abcflash.com/arts/r_tang/AATR.html
Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Jim Carr
Note followups.
"Steve Spence" <steve...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
}
} evolution is a religious belief!
Evolution is a name for a set of observed changes that need to
be explained. Belief in an objective reality may or may not
be consistent with your religion but it is the basis for science.
} I have met no evolutionists that did not
} believe in their theories with religious fervor, twisting facts to meet
} their hopes. The public school system does not say "this is what we think
} happened", they say "this is what happened".
It is rare to find a pre-college curriculum in any field that assumes
enough sophistication that it presents the experiments that modern
science is based on. It is also rare to find one that teaches the
actual history of creationist theories of evolution, which is one
explanation for the response quoted below:
ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
>
>The creation/flood model is shown to be a working model using science.
A model that posited a young earth creation and a literal flood was
the first creation-based theory of evolution, and the first to be
rejected by the scientists (all creationists in the broadest sense).
It was replaced with other creation-based models that did not take
Genesis quite so literally. Those also failed as knowledge about
physics, chemistry, and geology increased.
>The
>beginings of the heavens and the earth are presented in Genesis. The next
>step is to use science to see if it could be true.
That means formulating a model that makes specific statements about
such details as, in your case, when life was created, in what order
the species were created, when the flood occurred, and where the
water came from and went. I have never met a creationist willing
to state such a theory. If you are willing to do so, please e-mail
me a copy as well as posting it here on Usenet.
>Using science, it has
>been shown that it very well could have happened that way.
Part of science means looking for evidence against your model, as
well as for it. That is how a creationist scientist proved that
those alleged human footprints with dinosaur tracks were not that
at all -- although one still hears that used as "evidence".
>Evolution is based squarely on *faith*. *Faith* that the stuff in the big
>bang appreared out of no where then exploded. *Faith* that the dead stuff
>in a puddle of GUE came to life and slowly evolved into us.
Nope. Those statements all concern the origin of life, not the
evolution of species.
>*Faith* that
>their fossil records with the major gaps actually show evolution.
Not necessary, since it is seen in the laboratory, not to mention
everyday life. The most recent example is a bacterium that requires
a powerful antibiotic to flourish.
Steve Spence
hmm... If I know how a generator works (I read the manual), and demonstrate
it in a science class( and show the why and how), because I know how it
works I am "rationalizing"?
I read the Bible, I believe the Bible, All the evidence indicates the Bible
is true. The evidence shows evolution to be false. Thats science.
--
______________________________________
Steve Spence
ssp...@sequeltech.com
Http://www.sequeltech.com
Steve...@worldnet.att.net
Http://www.areaairduct.com/spence
MSMVP, MSDN, ClubIE
BetaID# 254651
ICQ 2063316
For definitions, answers, and how to - http://www.whatis.com
Windows 98 - Feature Overview
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows95/info/memfeat.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/press/1997/Jul97/WIN98.htm
______________________________________
Rich Lemert wrote in article <33EF39...@continet.com>...
>karl wrote:
>> The creation/flood model is shown to be a working model using science.
The
>> beginings of the heavens and the earth are presented in Genesis. The next
>> step is to use science to see if it could be true. Using science, it has
>> been shown that it very well could have happened that way.
>