For creation
GH Egilson
website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
here. Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off. Of
course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
most issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
few.
We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
is just like robbing a child.
You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
creative intelligence at work in the universe. There is no hard
evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence. Yet
you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
of some chemical processes!
It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
vibration or driving force behind creation.
Frank Reichenbacher
"GH Egilson" <gund...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd2cd23a.0310...@posting.google.com...
> Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here. Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off.
Amazingly, despite the fact that science is almost always wrong, you are
able to address a message to every human being on the planet who has
Internet access. Even though your message is nonsense.
Of
> course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
> most issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
> Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
> relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
> few.
>
> We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
> of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
> answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
> is just like robbing a child.
>
> You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
> creative intelligence at work in the universe. There is no hard
> evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
> anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
> manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence. Yet
> you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
> that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
> your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
> of some chemical processes!
>
> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> vibration or driving force behind creation.
>
Apparently it is not science which knows all, instead, *you* know all.
Should we bow and scrape before you? Is it proper to address you as Mr.
Egilson, or must we use "Your Highness"?
Frank
AC
GH Egilson <gund...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here. Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off.
Really? That's amazing. And just how long do you think modern science has
been around?
>Of
> course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
> most issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
> Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
> relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
> few.
That's the name of the game, and what makes science the perfect tool for
investing nature.
>
> We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
> of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
> answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
> is just like robbing a child.
Could you please provide the citation where scientists claimed to have all
the answers?
>
> You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
> creative intelligence at work in the universe.
Nobody said you did. But what you do have to have, if you wish to remain in
the realm of science, is evidence.
> There is no hard
> evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
> anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
> manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence.
That's because I can verify with certainty that it is.
>Yet
> you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
> that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
> your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
> of some chemical processes!
Tell me something. Is it intelligence that produced our eye with the
blindspot in it? Was it intelligence that produced human infants born so
prematurely that they take the better part of a year before they can even
walk? Was it intelligence that produced a breathing apparatus that is also
the means by which we supply nourishment to our bodies?
And who said it was chance? Hey, I've got an idea! Maybe you don't
actually understand what the theory states. Possible? Hmmm. I wonder.
>
> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> vibration or driving force behind creation.
"Undetected vibration"? I like it. Maybe you can start your own religion.
I tell you what, come back with a scientific theory of creation, and I'll
listen up. I'm very serious. But it must be *scientific*. And if you
don't know what that means, then I'm here to tell you (happily) that you've
just made an ass of yourself.
--
Aaron Clausen
Bobby D. Bryant
> Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here. Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off. Of
> course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on most
> issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g. Newton's
> law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of relativity,
> which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a few.
Newton's model actually describes things correctly for the scales of
space, time, speed, gravitation, etc., that are common to human
experience. He simply discovered the most accessible subset of the bigger
picture.
> We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
> of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the answers!!?
> It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it is just like
> robbing a child.
It's doubtful that any scientist alive thinks we have all the answers
regarding his/her field, or any other.
> You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
> creative intelligence at work in the universe.
No, you just have to let yourself be swayed by silly arguments like the
one you offer below.
> There is no hard evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in
> Heaven" on anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any
> other manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence.
That's because we're familiar with the intelligent agent that makes those
things, and in fact we know darn well how they're made.
> Yet you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
> that there is an intelligence at work here,
No, life, like galaxies, volcanoes, etc., is completely unlike anything
humans have ever made.
What is it that you see in the teeming like on this planet that you think
is the earmark of intelligent work?
> and you still keep banging your heads against stone and claim that this
> is just a chance result of some chemical processes!
Indeed, almost everything we know about the universe -- including
everything we know about life -- shows it to be the result of chemical or
other 'natural' processes.
Chance does play a role, but not the naive role ascribed to it by most
evolution deniers, and certainly not a role that anyone should find
alarming.
> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition,
Funny, I thought science wished to understand how the universe works.
> but it is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected vibration
> or driving force behind creation.
If it's undetected, what makes you suppose it's there?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Pip R. Lagenta
Egilson) wrote:
>Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
>website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
>here.
[snip]
Those who know nothing are often offended by those who know something.
I suspect that the "arrogant, 'we know all' tone" sounds like an
"arrogant, 'we know all' tone" only to those who are appalled by *any*
knowledge.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Boikat
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here.
As opposed to the arrogance of the average, under-educated (in the sciences)
creationists who know it all?
>Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off.
That is the nature os science. Once, scientists even thought that the world
was only a couple of thousand years old. Why, they even believed thatThe
universe, the earth, man and all other living things had been created over
the space of a few days. However, as you so aptly put it, they were wrong.
> Of
> course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
> most issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
> Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
> relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
> few.
Newton's formulas are still used to calculate orbits.
>
> We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
> of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
> answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
> is just like robbing a child.
Actually, nobody claims that, except people that know very little about
science.
>
> You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
> creative intelligence at work in the universe. There is no hard
> evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
> anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
> manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence.
That's because we know they do not self assemble.
> Yet
> you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
> that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
> your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
> of some chemical processes!
So, you are arguing from a possition if incredulity? I see.
>
> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> vibration or driving force behind creation.
If is unseen and undetected, what makes you think it's there? That's like,
to borrow an analogy, claiming I have a magic invisible dragon in my
garrage. You cannot see it, hear it, smell it or touch it. It leaves no
tracks or other traces, and you cannot even feel it's hot dragon-fire,
because it's magical fire. Do you see the problem with making assertions
about "unseen and undetected"? Do you see how that coupled with basing the
assertion on a possition of personal incredulity is meaningless?
--
Boikat
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons
are no match for a good blaster
at your side, kid."
Han Solo, Star Wars, Episode IV
"I find your lack of faith disturbing"
Darth Vader, Star Wars, Episode IV
John Harshman
GH Egilson wrote:
> Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here. Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off. Of
> course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
> most issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
> Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
> relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
> few.
We don't know everything. The point of the web archive is that we do
know some things, and those things are sufficient to show quite a bit
about the history of the earth, and even some about the mechanisms that
drove that history.
> We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
> of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
> answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
> is just like robbing a child.
In reality, the TO archive is not comparing itself with religion, but
with creationism. When you realize that religion and creationism are two
quite different things, you will have learned something important.
> You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
> creative intelligence at work in the universe.
And almost all of the archive has nothing at all to do with whether
there is a creative intelligence in the universe. It has to do with
refuting the beliefs of creationists, who say that the earth is 6000
years old, that all life was created at the beginning looking pretty
much like it does today, that humans and apes are not related to each
other, and that a worldwide flood is responsible for most of the
geological column. Do you share any of those views?
> There is no hard
> evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
> anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
> manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence. Yet
> you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
> that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
> your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
> of some chemical processes!
It screams at you; it doesn't scream at a lot of people. Science
generally doesn't work with your personal impressions unless you can
back them up with some sort of evidence that's accessible to everyone.
You may consider that a flaw of science, but it's the only tool we have
that lets us gain reliable, mutually agreed upon knowledge of the
universe. Your personal impressions may indeed be correct, but it's hard
to discuss them with others except as naked assertions, and you don't
get very far that way.
By the way, you need to stop arguing against straw men. Nobody claims
that life is a result of chance. There are many processes at work in
evolution that are unintelligent but highly non-random.
> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> vibration or driving force behind creation.
But how can you tell whether there is or not, objectively? How can you
demonstrate that to others who don't hear the screams themselves?
In my opinion, there are features of the history of life that suggest a
lack of design. Perhaps you would like to argue about those.
Stelios Zacharias
wrote:
I'll be happy with a scientific theory of undetected vibration.
My head hurts from parsing that paragraph.
Stelios Zacharias
--
The address in the headers is real and does not need de-mungeing
Texas Boy
> creative intelligence at work in the universe. There is no hard
> evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
> anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
> manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence. Yet
> you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
> that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
> your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
> of some chemical processes!
GH - If this is enough to convince you the universe was created - that's
perfectly fine. No one can prove you wrong, and many agree with you. It
is, of course, not a scientific analysis - it's an emotional evaluation -
and CAN be right; but it is outside the realm of science.
This emotion-based belief of yours shouldn't impede you from accepting
analyses which ARE scientific- for example, the overwhelming scientific
evidence regarding the age of the earth and of the universe. I do hope you
recognize the distinction between your faith (backed up with your emotional
evidence) and the irrational insistence that (contrary to overwhelming
scientific evidence) the earth is less than 20,000 years old - as Young
Earth Creationists insist.
"GH Egilson" <gund...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd2cd23a.0310...@posting.google.com...
Hiero5ant
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here.
Greetings.
I have, in my life, been invited to attend numerous church groups (both
Catholic and Protestant), neighborhood organizations, political rallies,
book clubs, poetry societies, civil war reenactments, sporting events, and
simple family get togethers.
Not once in my life have the first words of introduction out of my
mouth been sweeping, unsubstantiated insults at the whole groups of people
in attendance. Not once have I undertaken to introduce myself to someone by
telling them that I was appalled by them.
I will ask you a very blunt and direct question: is your complete lack
of any sense of decency the result of :
a) your religious beliefs
b) the way your mother raised you, or
c) your own innate inability to interact politely with others?
John Harshman
Hiero5ant wrote:
d) just the way the internet works; people tend not to think about it as
real interaction with real people, and feel free to act in ways they
would never act in person.
I hope. If not, then I hope I never actually meet a great many of the
people who post here, on all sides.
Lane Lewis
Arrogance is making assertions that you have no plans to back up.
If you are hearing screams, I have yet to hear a peep. We can follow the
fossil record from very simple one celled animals 3,7 billion years ago to
the ones like a blue whale or the primates we have today. We are now capable
of understanding enough of the human genome to realize that the DNA was
built up over time and still has the history of it's making with genes that
are similar and exact to those of plants. We've observed the mechanism long
enough to know that it does work and plants and animals are evolving around
us.
None of this discounts a creator, it just shows us that in day to day
evolutionary processes a creator does not have to get involved, no more than
getting involved in an apple falling from a tree. Perhaps if there is a
creator it wishes it to be done this way.
So perhaps you will reassess your arrogance and enlighten us to how you
know that the creator gets involved in the details of each plant and animal
that exist on earth.
Lane
Pip R. Lagenta
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
[snip]
>d) just the way the internet works; people tend not to think about it as
>real interaction with real people, and feel free to act in ways they
>would never act in person.
>
>I hope. If not, then I hope I never actually meet a great many of the
>people who post here, on all sides.
Ah, yes. To know me is to love me, but you will *never* know me by my
posts to usenet alone.
John Wilkins
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:46:11 +0000 (UTC), AC <tao...@alberni.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:30:04 +0000 (UTC),
> >GH Egilson <gund...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> >> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> >> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> >> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> >> vibration or driving force behind creation.
> >
> >"Undetected vibration"? I like it. Maybe you can start your own religion.
> >
> >I tell you what, come back with a scientific theory of creation, and I'll
> >listen up.
>
> I'll be happy with a scientific theory of undetected vibration.
> My head hurts from parsing that paragraph.
>
Nobody said it had to be a Good Vibration...
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Geoff Offermann
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here. Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off.
You've got it backwards, pal. With the exception of a few myopic
technologists like the head of the US Patent Office circa 1900, scientists
are only well aware of the shortcomings of their theories. Scientists KNOW
that there are two kinds of theories: ones that have been proven false, and
ones that will be proven false.
Does this mean the ToE is completely wrong? Doubtful, but it is assuredly
incomplete. But that's what makes science so robust. The constant iteration
between deduction and induction to ever whittle away at ignorance and expose
more of nature to the light of knowledge.
On the other hand, religion is smug that it has all the answers. The answer
is of course the Bible. And evidence is mangled, distorted, and outright
fabricated to agree with the conclusion. This is what we in the scientific
world call "ass half backward." Pseudoscience. Malarkey. Horse hockey.
Merde.
>Of
> course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
> most issues.
Speaking for religion, methinks you flatter it.
> When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
> Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
> relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
> few.
Wrong...Relativity and quantum theories explain two different things.
Getting them to mesh together into a Grand Unified Theory (with
electromagnetism, etc.) has been the life's work of more than a few great
minds.
> We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
> of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
> answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
> is just like robbing a child.
'Tis!
> You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
> creative intelligence at work in the universe. There is no hard
> evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
> anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
> manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence. Yet
> you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
> that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
> your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
> of some chemical processes!
Ahh...the old Paley's watch strawman argument. Obviously, you do not
understand the first thing about ToE. Be a lamb and start by reading Darwin.
If God is our designer, he is both brilliant and flawed. Perhaps God is a
savant! Each individual cell is incredibly complex. But nerve ganglions
create a blind spot in our vision (although the brain compensates for it).
The trachea and the esophagus are dangerously close together.
If all life is designed, why don't we observe modifications crossing
evolutionarily perceived lines of descent? Why are all bat wings similar and
likewise different from bird wings which in turn differ from insect wings?
Why do all mammals have similar morphologies? Humans and bison have the same
number of ribs. Giraffes and mice have the same number of vertebrae.
> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> vibration or driving force behind creation.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make evolution false. Just
because you can't imagine the immense stretches of time that make natural
selection possible, does not make God a requirement.
Mark VandeWettering
> Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here.
Awww.
> Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off. Of
> course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
> most issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
> Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
> relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
> few.
Do you think that Newton was "way off"?
> We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
> of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
> answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
> is just like robbing a child.
What does any of this have to do with origins or evolution, the nominal
topics that this newsgroup is concerned with?
> You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
> creative intelligence at work in the universe. There is no hard
> evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
> anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
> manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence. Yet
> you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
> that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
> your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
> of some chemical processes!
You know cars and computers are made by humans because you see humans
make them. You don't see intelligences making living things, and yet
you conclude they must be made by intelligence. Strange.
> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> vibration or driving force behind creation.
Nonsense.
Mark
Andy Groves
> Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here.
Could you cite an example of a post in this group which led you to
that opinion? Please provide the Google reference. Just one post will
do.
Thanks.
Andy
<remainder snipped>
John Baker
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here.
No, we don't think we "know all." It just sometimes seems that way to those
who know nothing.
<remainder of creationist hogwash snipped>
Hiero5ant
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3F96F501...@pacbell.net...
Oh, come on now. Tell me you've honestly never wondered what it would
be like to spend an afternoon with one of the spammers who posts the "Add 3
inches to your manliness!!!!!!" things...
Bobby D. Bryant
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3F96F501...@pacbell.net...
>> d) just the way the internet works; people tend not to think about it as
>> real interaction with real people, and feel free to act in ways they
>> would never act in person.
>>
>> I hope. If not, then I hope I never actually meet a great many of the
>> people who post here, on all sides.
>
> Oh, come on now. Tell me you've honestly never wondered what it would
> be like to spend an afternoon with one of the spammers [...]
A whole afternoon? How many kneecaps do they have?
Pastor Salt
the website is a collection of information.. i repeat information of
sciences current understanding of evolution.
You might not like it... but it stacks up well with what we see.. it doesnt
rely on "undetectable" vibrations or any other "unseen" forces.
With continued application science is pushing further and further into
natures "secrets" and who knows... maybe we will find your
"vibrations"...and then EVERYONE will be happy... well most people anyway
:-)
I notice that you have not replied to the thread you created... this is what
normally happens... someone comes in the guns blazing and then disappears
without trying to discuss an issue in a logical manner..
Anyway .. if you read some of the talk.origins info..try discussing and
points you disagree with... i am confident that you can have a rational
discussion with the people that frequent the ng.
Steve
The are no stupid questions.... but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
John Wilkins
There are fingers and toes, too, not to mention the metatarsals and
metacarpals... and anything *good* should be done slowly, to savour the
experience.
Lenny Flank
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here. Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off. Of
> course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
> most issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
> Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
> relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
> few.
>
> We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
> of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
> answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
> is just like robbing a child.
>
> You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
> creative intelligence at work in the universe.
Glad to hear it. I hope you can answer a simple question for me:
*ahem*
All I want to know is this: what is the scientific theory of creation
(or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific
method?
I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of (mostly
inaccurate) criticisms of evolutionary biology. They are completely
irrelevant to a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design. I
want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing----the
one you want taught in public school science classes, the one that
creationists and intelligent design "theorists" testified under oath
in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and elsewhere is SCIENCE and is NOT
based on religious doctrine. Let's assume for the purposes of this
discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely completely
totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead wrong. Fine.
Show me your scientific alternative. Show me how your scientific
theory explains things better than evolutionary biology does. Let's
see this superior "science" of yours.
Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide
answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the
current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used in
these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today.
Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able to
give testible answers to other questions: (1) what is the Intelligent
Designer, where is it, why is it THIS proposed Designer instead of
THAT one, and what establishes that there is just ONE Intelligent
Designer and not, say, ten or a hundred of them working in committee,
(2) what exactly did the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (3) what
mechanisms did the Designer(s) use and where can we see these
mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective criteria can we use
to determine what entities are "intelligently designed" and what
entities aren't.
If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these
questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to
scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we perform,
in principle, to answer these questions.
Also, since any scientific theory must be potentially falsifiable,
tell me what experimental results or data would, in principle, falsify
the scientific theory of creation or intelligent design.
I look forward to seeing your "scientific theories".
Unless, of course, there AREN'T any . . . . .
<snip>
> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> vibration or driving force behind creation.
Uh, if it's unseen and undetected, then what makes you think it's THERE. . . .
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo/group/DebunkCreation
Bobby D. Bryant
> hey there...
>
> the website is a collection of information.. i repeat information of
> sciences current understanding of evolution.
>
> You might not like it... but it stacks up well with what we see.. it doesnt
> rely on "undetectable" vibrations or any other "unseen" forces.
Might be useful hypotheses for a study about trees falling in forests.
David Jensen
<pan.2003.10.23....@mail.utexas.edu>:
They fell over when one hand clapped.
Geoff Offermann
news:1g3aabj.9sahbae4i47vN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> Bobby D. Bryant <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
<snip>
> > > Oh, come on now. Tell me you've honestly never wondered what it
would
> > > be like to spend an afternoon with one of the spammers [...]
> >
> > A whole afternoon? How many kneecaps do they have?
>
> There are fingers and toes, too, not to mention the metatarsals and
> metacarpals... and anything *good* should be done slowly, to savour the
> experience.
Ahhhhh...the sensuous evolutionist...
John Wilkins
[Wilkins does Sinatra finger-snapping coolness]
Nope, no trees fell.
us...@example.com
>Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
>website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
Then you appall easily. Try dealing with doctors or lawyers some time.
>We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
>of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
>answers!!?
On the contrary, we know it does not.
>You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
>creative intelligence at work in the universe.
Right... but then you have to deal with ET.
>evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
>anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
>manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence.
Yes, because you already know.
>you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
>that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
>your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
>of some chemical processes!
Indeedium, my dear Trollius.
us...@example.com
> Oh, come on now. Tell me you've honestly never wondered what it would
>be like to spend an afternoon with one of the spammers who posts the "Add 3
>inches to your manliness!!!!!!" things...
Well, if I had a 2 by 4, I wouldn't need a whole afternoon. Ten minutes
would be sufficient.
Dracc...@netscape.net
> > website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> > history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off.
>
> able to address a message to every human being on the planet who has
> Internet access. Even though your message is nonsense.
>
>
> Of
> > course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
> > most issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
> > Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
> > relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
> > few.
> >
> > of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
> > is just like robbing a child.
> >
> > evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
> > anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
> > you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
> > that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
> > your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
> > of some chemical processes!
> >
> > distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> > is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> > undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> > vibration or driving force behind creation.
> >
>
> Should we bow and scrape before you? Is it proper to address you as Mr.
> Egilson, or must we use "Your Highness"?
>
> Frank
I was thinking more Grande High Poobah perhaps.
Do not Meddle in the Affairs of Dragons for you are Crunchy and good with ketchup.
Mike Dworetsky
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1g3a2zx.bjcenbaoiop1N%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> Stelios Zacharias <goatskin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:46:11 +0000 (UTC), AC <tao...@alberni.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:30:04 +0000 (UTC),
> > >GH Egilson <gund...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> > >> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> > >> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> > >> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> > >> vibration or driving force behind creation.
> > >
> > >"Undetected vibration"? I like it. Maybe you can start your own
religion.
> > >
> > >I tell you what, come back with a scientific theory of creation, and
I'll
> > >listen up.
> >
> > I'll be happy with a scientific theory of undetected vibration.
> > My head hurts from parsing that paragraph.
> >
> Nobody said it had to be a Good Vibration...
Oooh, were the Beach Boys creationists?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Dan Day
wrote:
>>> You might not like it... but it stacks up well with what we see.. it doesnt
>>> rely on "undetectable" vibrations or any other "unseen" forces.
>>
>>Might be useful hypotheses for a study about trees falling in forests.
>
>They fell over when one hand clapped.
There is no hand.
Dan Day
<geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>
>If God is our designer, he is both brilliant and flawed. Perhaps God is a
>savant!
On another forum, a fun little outraged flamewar that lasted for several
days was ignited by a science-minded individual laying out some very
not-consistent-with-design features of our DNA and concluding with,
"if this was the work of a designer, he must have been drunk."
Richard A. Mathers
> > distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> > is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> > undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> > vibration or driving force behind creation.
> >
>
> Should we bow and scrape before you? Is it proper to address you as Mr.
> Egilson, or must we use "Your Highness"?
>
> Frank
How about addressing him as another sock puppet of Charlie Wagner?
RAM
GH Egilson
Hello again,
I never meant to be impolite with my remarks, please accept my
apologies if you feel that way. However, what I am rebelling against,
if you can put it that way, is what I perceive as mainstream's
dismissive attitude to anything that is not accepted by the official
dogma. That is also a characteristic of religions, you know. By the
way, I belong to no religions whatever, I can't stand dogma.
Most advances in science, the science you promote and now take for
granted, have been made by people who swam against the main current,
who saw beyond the accepted dogma of their time. Today is no
different. Even though science has become more advanced than earlier,
in my opinion the established science community is just as hostile to
challenges to their cherished theories and dogma as before. That has
more to do with human nature than science, though.
I can only say, as a lay observer when I see life's processes at work,
that there is something behind it other than the mechanical/chemical
reactions to external stimuli that seems to be mainstream science's
explanation. There is some crucial ingredient missing there. There is
simply too much intelligence and order observable. When even I, a
layman, and many ohers like me, can see such signs of creative
intelligence in life, any good scientist would take that possibility
into account instead of dismissing it just because it did not fit into
his preconceived ideology.
us...@example.com
>I never meant to be impolite with my remarks, please accept my
>apologies if you feel that way.
You know, qualified apologies are not apologies, but anyway...
>if you can put it that way, is what I perceive as mainstream's
>dismissive attitude to anything that is not accepted by the official
>dogma.
It's your perception; there is no "official dogma." All scientific
theories are subject to falsification, and therefore replacement by
other theories. The only catch is that the scientist must follow the
scientific method.
>Most advances in science, the science you promote and now take for
>granted, have been made by people who swam against the main current,
>who saw beyond the accepted dogma of their time.
Yes, and they did so following the scientific method. Anyone is welcome
to do the same to this date. That is not dogma. Dogma is final but
science is not.
>I can only say, as a lay observer when I see life's processes at work,
>that there is something behind it other than the mechanical/chemical
>reactions to external stimuli that seems to be mainstream science's
>explanation. There is some crucial ingredient missing there. There is
>simply too much intelligence and order observable. When even I, a
>layman, and many ohers like me, can see such signs of creative
>intelligence in life, any good scientist would take that possibility
>into account instead of dismissing it just because it did not fit into
>his preconceived ideology.
It's not a preceonceived ideology. In fact, for a good couple of
centuries before Darwin, scientists took the possibility you mention
into account. They tried hard but, in the end, they realized that
invoking a "creative intelligence" not only was not necessary, but also
introduced more problems than it solved.
Ernest Major
>Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
>website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
>course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
>most issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
>Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
>relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
>few.
Scientific knowledge is provisional; it is subject to revision in the
light of new observations. However that doesn't mean that we must funk
the conclusions inherent in what we know - that way lies epistemological
nihilism and skeptopathy [1]
Science in general models the universe. Without the gumption to propose
and test models, it would be no more than stamp-collecting.
We can never know that science has the final truth - solipsism and
omphalism, for example, can never be ruled out on evidential grounds.
All we can do is evaluate models according to their utility in
explaining and predicting natural phenomena.
The arrogance lies in not in those defending the models of mainstream
science against the know-nothings of the ID movement, but in those
making vacuous claims that someone, somewhere, somehow, sometime,
designed something - and that this means that evolution is utterly
false/every word of your favourite evangelist is gospel, even though
there are literally, conservatively, millions of items of evidence
supporting the factual nature of common descent.
As a point of fact, Newtonian Mechanics is the low velocity limit of
Special Relativity, and Special Relativity is limit of General
Relativity in a universe lacking matter and energy. In other words
Newton wasn't way off. And in general major scientific theories are
rarely found to be way off - phlogiston and fixist geology are the best
examples that I can offer - but are instead extended and improved by
their successors.
General Relativity no more challenges Quantum Mechanics than vice versa;
this is not a case of one theory superceding another. Instead both are
successful models in their own domains, but they are inconsistent with
each other. Any theory which reconciles these differences must
regenerate GR and QM, or something very, very, very close, in the
appropriate domains.
>
>We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
>of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
>answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
>is just like robbing a child.
So, you not only arrogantly dismiss science, but religion also?
>
>You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
>creative intelligence at work in the universe. There is no hard
>evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
>anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
>manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence. Yet
>you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
>that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
>your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
>of some chemical processes!
Complexity and design don't go hand in hand. Some designed objects are
remarkably simple: for example a cold chisel or a mercury thermometer.
Some complex objects are not designed: for example snowflakes or
coastlines.
The claim that the complexity of life requires an intelligent designer
has an implicit premise - that a cause must be more complex than its
effects. This premise is emperically false. Consider fractals (e.g. the
Mandelbrot Set) or cellular automata, which can be highly complex
objects, but can be defined by remarkably simple rules. (I once saw a
toroidal implementation of Conway's Life, with a grid of the order of
20x20, produce a symmetric oscillating state with a period of over 30,
from a random seed state.) Moreover the premise is logically
problematic; it involves the proponent in an infinite regress.
"chance result of some chemical processes" is a straw man; it either
does not represent any scientific claim, or is fatally imprecise. It
neither applies to abiogenesis (chemical processes may be stochastic,
but the result, within limits, are deterministic, given the conditions
under which they take place) nor to evolution (which depends on
variation and selection, not directly on chemical processes). You could
just as well argue that development and metabolism can't just be the
result of random chemical processes, and that growth and life depends on
continual intelligent intervention.
Your implicit argument, as far as I can reconstruct it, also doesn't
seem coherent.
1) If you're arguing that abiogenesis could not occur spontaneously,
then the evolved complexity of the current biota ("all the teeming life
of this planet") is irrelevant, nullifying your argument.
2) If you're arguing for intervention in the course of evolution, you'll
find that this (under the name of theistic evolution) is not strongly
objected to by the great majority of those here who accept mainstream
science; it's creationists and your fellow travellers in the ID movement
who complain. And you've more or less conceded that undirected evolution
could produce a comparable result, nullifying your argument.
3) If you're arguing for omphalism (that the whole universe was created
recently with the appearance of age) then you're arguing that everything
is designed, so why focus on the complexity of life.
>
>It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
>distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
>is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
>undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
>vibration or driving force behind creation.
>
Earlier you claim that the complexity of life is evidence for
intelligent design. Even if one were to grant this, how do you make the
leap from life to the whole universe? And are you arguing for omniscient
deism, non-omniscient deism, pantheism, panentheism, or something else?
You may well find that the objection is not to the concept that
intelligent design is present in life, but to the use of that concept in
political campaigns with hidden or not so hidden motives, by those
wishing to destroy the American educational system. The concept is not a
priori false - local directed abiogenesis [2] is at least a logically
possible to local spontaneous abiogenesis, local supernatural
abiogenesis or any of the various forms of panspermia, and there are
also plenty of forms of interference with the natural course of
evolution that one could postulate, such as aliens weeding out unwanted
species every million years, or dumping a thousand tons of carefully
design retroviruses into the ecosystem every ten thousand years.
There are many models of the universe in which interference by
intelligent agents occur. If these models don't differ in their
predictions from those without such interference, then the obvious path
is to apply Occam's Razor and reject those many contradictory models in
favour of the simpler hypothesis. The only useful models with
interference by intelligent agents are those with empirical
consequences.
If you want ID to be taken seriously, you need an honest research
program, with genuine testable hypothesis about who designed what, when
and how; not arguments from incredulity about complexity and
probability. Kaufmann's work on self-organisation may or may not pan out
as extension to the ToE, but it's an honest research program, with a
search for empirical consequences, and I respect him for it.
[1] Being unreasonably skeptical of what is well evidenced, and then
accepting any old idea in its place.
[2] Some aliens set up a laboratory on the early Earth, and synthesised
the first cell of this planet's biota ab initio.
--
alias Ernest Major
A troll-baiter's just another troll (on the froups he takes his toll),
A kook-basher's just another kook (any good result is just a fluke).
Mark VandeWettering
Creationism _is_ really insipid, isn't it?
Or were you referring to some other mainstream?
> That is also a characteristic of religions, you know. By the
> way, I belong to no religions whatever, I can't stand dogma.
You may not belong to a church, but you seem to have religion o'plenty.
> Most advances in science, the science you promote and now take for
> granted, have been made by people who swam against the main current,
> who saw beyond the accepted dogma of their time.
And also had the evidence to back up their new ideas.
> Today is no
> different. Even though science has become more advanced than earlier,
> in my opinion the established science community is just as hostile to
> challenges to their cherished theories and dogma as before. That has
> more to do with human nature than science, though.
Creationism and Intelligent Design aren't challenges to scientific theory.
> I can only say, as a lay observer when I see life's processes at work,
> that there is something behind it other than the mechanical/chemical
> reactions to external stimuli that seems to be mainstream science's
> explanation.
Why should science consider the observations of an uninformed person above
the decades of observation which support the ToE?
> There is some crucial ingredient missing there. There is
> simply too much intelligence and order observable. When even I, a
> layman, and many ohers like me, can see such signs of creative
> intelligence in life, any good scientist would take that possibility
> into account instead of dismissing it just because it did not fit into
> his preconceived ideology.
They dismiss it because you can't demonstrate what you claim to observe.
Mark
Christopher Denney
news:3f989ed4....@news-server.houston.rr.com:
Only Zuul.
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
A pun is the shortest distance between two straight lines.
Frank Reichenbacher
I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
>
> Most advances in science, the science you promote and now take for
> granted,
So do you. Every day you use and depend on the material products made
possible by scientists.
> have been made by people who swam against the main current,
Rubbish. The overwhelming vast majority of scientists are plain old regular
people.
> who saw beyond the accepted dogma of their time. Today is no
> different. Even though science has become more advanced than earlier,
> in my opinion the established science community is just as hostile to
> challenges to their cherished theories and dogma as before. That has
> more to do with human nature than science, though.
Duh. What's your point?
>
> I can only say, as a lay observer when I see life's processes at work,
> that there is something behind it other than the mechanical/chemical
> reactions to external stimuli that seems to be mainstream science's
> explanation.
There is no evidence for any such thing.
> There is some crucial ingredient missing there. There is
> simply too much intelligence and order observable. When even I, a
> layman, and many ohers like me, can see such signs of creative
> intelligence in life,
You see it because you want to see it.
any good scientist would take that possibility
> into account instead of dismissing it just because it did not fit into
> his preconceived ideology.
>
Sceince has a hard time with "...unseen and undetected vibration[s] or
driving force[s]..." What are they supposed to do? Pull out a Ouija board
and consult the spirits everytime they get an experimental result that's a
little off expectation? And why would they even resort to such models when
empirically verified theories *already* account for the observed phenomena?
Frank
Christopher Denney
> Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> here. Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off. Of
> course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
> most issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
> Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
> relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
> few.
Science is a history of upgrades, religion seeks the retrograde.
> We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
> of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
> answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
> is just like robbing a child.
Science attempts to scratch a little deeper every year, religion attempts
to fill in and polish the surface.
I might point out that is mostly the religious who want to compare
religion to science, not the scientists. Many scientists will not
tolerate the incorrect information being repeated by creationists without
rebuttal.
> You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
> creative intelligence at work in the universe. There is no hard
Technically true, but in practice not.
> evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
> anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
> manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence. Yet
> you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
Not me, can't hear any such thing.
> that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
> your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
> of some chemical processes!
Ah, here you demonstrate you lack of knowledge of the subject.
> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> vibration or driving force behind creation.
There might be, who knows. Until there is some way to test it, predict
it, or make predictions based on it, it's unlikely to be accepted as
science.
AC
But they always had the evidence on their side.
> Today is no
> different. Even though science has become more advanced than earlier,
> in my opinion the established science community is just as hostile to
> challenges to their cherished theories and dogma as before. That has
> more to do with human nature than science, though.
Of course scientists don't like to see theories toppled. But one requires
evidence to topple a theory, not just wishful thinking. If something comes
along that explains things better, than evolution will be supplanted, no
matter if every biologist is dragged kicking and screaminng into it or not.
>
> I can only say, as a lay observer when I see life's processes at work,
> that there is something behind it other than the mechanical/chemical
> reactions to external stimuli that seems to be mainstream science's
> explanation.
Then provide evidence. If this is what you believe, and it actually is part
of the process, then evidence will exist.
> There is some crucial ingredient missing there. There is
> simply too much intelligence and order observable.
And why can't order arise through natural processes? Crystals are extremely
organized. Do you think that some intelligence makes diamonds?
> When even I, a
> layman, and many ohers like me, can see such signs of creative
> intelligence in life, any good scientist would take that possibility
> into account instead of dismissing it just because it did not fit into
> his preconceived ideology.
Ah, but that is the crux. Science can only work with what is observable.
It is entirely possible that the universe and everything in it was created
last Thursday by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's just as possible that it
was created this morning at 03:35:41 Central Standard Time by Ed, the
Invisible Iguana of Doom. It's just as likely that Yahweh created the whole
darn thing 6,000 years ago.
Do you see the problem here? All three of of these assertions (Invisible
Pink Unicorn, Ed the Invisible Iguana of Doom and Yahweh) could create the
universe and everything in it any way they pleased. Thus, they could
explain absolutely any observation and are completely unfalsifiable. Though
Yahweh, the unicorn or the iguana might all three apart, together, or some
other deity or deities might be responsible for the whole show, it is
effectively nothing more than claiming that it all came into being by magic.
If science accepts a designer, then science has to be able to determine how
and when this designer created everything. Science is about evidence. It
isn't about dogma. It isn't about religious beliefs. It is about what we
can observe. We observe that life evolves, and thus have a theory that
attempts to explain it. What is more, that theory also makes predictions
which we can then go into the fossil record and even into our own genes to
test those predictions.
If you really want to have a designer inserted into science, the first thing
you'd better do is supply a scientific theory of Creation. Nothing less
will do. Even punching holes in evolutionary theory, or blowing it right
out of the water will not do. You must make positive, falsifiable claims.
--
Aaron Clausen
Jack
--
jacktheobscure at hotmail.com
>
> I wonder if the means that God had beans for dinner? It might be the
> first step to a Big Burp.
>
>
> --
> Kjell S.
> Email: e97_kjs AT e.kth.se
>
Dana Tweedy
snipping
> I can only say, as a lay observer when I see life's processes at work,
> that there is something behind it other than the mechanical/chemical
> reactions to external stimuli that seems to be mainstream science's
> explanation. There is some crucial ingredient missing there. There is
> simply too much intelligence and order observable.
How do you know the order equals intelligence? Aren't you aware that order
does not alway require an intelligent agent?
> When even I, a
> layman, and many ohers like me, can see such signs of creative
> intelligence in life, any good scientist would take that possibility
> into account instead of dismissing it just because it did not fit into
> his preconceived ideology.
No scientists dismisses the possibility of a "creative intelligence"out of
hand, and it's not against any "preconveived ideology". There simply isn't
any physical evidence of a creative intelligence capable of creating life.
Your claim is basically "Life is complex, so it must have been designed".
That's a false assumption. Complex systems are known to form by
non-directed processes. Science only deals in evidence, and one of it's
basic operating principles is not to needlessly complicate matters (see
Occam's Razor). If there is no evidence that indicates a intelligent
creator, then there is no reason to consider such a being. That doesn't
mean such a creator can't exist, just that there is no observable evidence
of one.
DJT
>
Ross Langerak
> Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the
Talk.origins
> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off.
Every time a creationist points to the lack of a complete theory on
the origin of life (abiogenesis) as an argument against evolution, he
is suggesting that we should have all of the answers right now.
Scientists are perfectly aware that there are still unanswered
questions. If there ever comes a time when we have all of the
answers, there will be no more need for scientists.
If you should be appalled with anything in this newsgroup, it should
be with the creationist attitude that they don't need to be familiar
with evolution or the evidence supporting it in order to criticize
evolution. The tone you may have perceived from evolutionists is the
result of many creationists coming to this newsgroup and posting the
same tired old arguments that have been refuted over and over and over
again. The problem isn't that evolutionists think they know
everything, the problem is that creationists think they already know
everything and refuse to look at the evidence.
> Of
> course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
> most issues. When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
> Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
> relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
> few.
Actually, Newtonian mechanics never became outdated. We still us it
to send satellites and probes to explore space. Special relativity is
a refinement that was originally motivated by electromagnetic theory,
not gravitational theory. When it is applied to mechanics, special
relativity is only necessary for extremely high velocities.
Notice that, in each case, the theory didn't just change, it improved.
Whether we modify it or replace it, the result is always a better
theory. Evolution replaced creation because evolution is the better
theory. The fact that there are still some unanswered questions in
evolution doesn't make creation any better as a theory.
> We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this
world
> of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
> answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior,
it
> is just like robbing a child.
As far as I know, no one here thinks that we have all the answers.
However, we do have answers to most of the creationist arguments.
It's not our fault that creationists aren't familiar with the
evidence. (We even have a FAQ where they could go learn about
evolution if they would just go read it.)
> You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
> creative intelligence at work in the universe. There is no hard
> evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
> anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
> manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence.
We know that cars and computers are created by an intelligence because
we know that they are made in a factory. We also know that the
materials that cars and computers are made from are not found in
nature in their refined state.
> Yet
> you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
> that there is an intelligence at work here,
There is no evolutionary mechanism for producing cars and computers.
There is an evolutionary mechanism for producing the variety of life
that we see today. There are also some fundamental differences
between man made objects and living organisms. If you go into an auto
parts store, you can buy a light bulb that will fit in many different
makes and models of automobile. Living organisms don't have parts
that are readily interchangeable. Even something as simple as blood
has several types that cannot be exchanged or mixed.
We know that cars and computers are made by people. We also know that
those people are fallible and have a maximum lifetime of about a
hundred years. Therefore, by your argument, we should conclude that
life was designed by a person who probably made some mistakes and has
been dead for a long time. Do you really want to use an argument that
concludes that God is dead?
The real question, though, is: How do we recognize design? You'll
probably need to explain that before we can take this any further.
> and you still keep banging
> your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
> of some chemical processes!
Chemical processes do not occur just by chance.
> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but
it
> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
> vibration or driving force behind creation.
Scientists want to understand nature. It has nothing to do with
religion. But whatever their motivations may be, they have nothing to
do with the validity of any theory. Theories are judged entirely by
how well they fit the evidence. Evolution is overwhelmingly supported
by the evidence. This is why evolution is accepted by scientists.
Ross Langerak
There is nothing dogmatic about science or evolution. Alternative
explanations are examined and theories do change went the evidence
warrants it.
> I can only say, as a lay observer when I see life's processes at
work,
> that there is something behind it other than the mechanical/chemical
> reactions to external stimuli that seems to be mainstream science's
> explanation. There is some crucial ingredient missing there. There
is
> simply too much intelligence and order observable. When even I, a
> layman, and many ohers like me, can see such signs of creative
> intelligence in life, any good scientist would take that possibility
> into account instead of dismissing it just because it did not fit
into
> his preconceived ideology.
What crucial ingredient is missing? What is it? How do you recognize
intelligence? How do you recognize order? I don't see signs of
creative intelligence. What are they? So far, you haven't presented
anything that could be used as evidence to evaluate evolution.
Bobby D. Bryant
> Most advances in science, the science you promote and now take for
> granted, have been made by people who swam against the main current, who
> saw beyond the accepted dogma of their time.
I very seriously doubt that. AFAICT almost all science is merely
cumulative.
> Today is no different. Even though science has become more advanced than
> earlier, in my opinion the established science community is just as
> hostile to challenges to their cherished theories and dogma as before.
You reveal only that you are unfamiliar with scientific literature. Every
scientist _dreams_ of making that discovery or inference that stands
entire fields on their heads.
> That has more to do with human nature than science, though.
Interestingly, w.r.t. what I mentioned just above, it's precisely our
human weaknesses that help keep science from degenerating into hidebound
dogma.
> I can only say, as a lay observer when I see life's processes at work,
> that there is something behind it other than the mechanical/chemical
> reactions to external stimuli that seems to be mainstream science's
> explanation.
What precisely do you see? What part of, say, the human body has ever
been explained otherwise?
> There is some crucial ingredient missing there. There is simply too much
> intelligence and order observable.
Really? Quantitatively speaking, just how much intelligence and order
_are_ observable? And also quantitatively speaking, what is the threshold
for "too much".
> When even I, a layman, and many ohers like me, can see such signs of
> creative intelligence in life, any good scientist would take that
> possibility into account instead of dismissing it
No, the whole exercise of science is setting aside that kind of naive
personal "I know it when I see it" model of the universe for a model that
is supported by evidence.
> just because it did not fit into his preconceived ideology.
In addition to all the other errors in your post, you misrepresent the
reasons scientists reject ideas. Basically, you're insinuating that I'm
dishonest, and that's starting to irk me.
GH Egilson
> Sceince has a hard time with "...unseen and undetected vibration[s] or
> driving force[s]..." What are they supposed to do? Pull out a Ouija board
> and consult the spirits everytime they get an experimental result that's a
> little off expectation? And why would they even resort to such models when
> empirically verified theories *already* account for the observed phenomena?
>
> Frank
What I have been talking about is mostly my gut feeling from observing
life on this planet. However, there are some experiments that validate
my point. They do not prove it in the scientific sense, but go a long
way. This is a system called Cymatics, developed by Swiss medical
doctor and natural scientist, Hans Jenny (1904-1972). By using sound
vibrations he could animate powders, pastes, and liquids into
life-like, flowing forms which resemble biological processes and even
galaxies.
These are totally demonstrable and repeatable experiments which show
that the whole universe could be powered by such, as yet, undetected
vibration or sound. If some brave scientist would dare to risk
ridicule and his career and develop an instrument which could detect
this underlying vibration, we would be getting awfully close to a
creator, in my opinion.
The Cymatics website is here: http://www.cymaticsource.com/index.html
It is truly fascinating to see how closely the vibrations resemble
processes in nature. So, there you have tangible evidence of what I am
talking about.
GHE
observa
We have a wide range of instruments for detecting sound. They have been,
and are being, used every day. The "vibrations" you mention have never been
detected. You are making an unwarranted leap from small-scale, to
large-scale. Sometimes it is justified, in this case not.
If there was anything to it it would have been discovered by now.
Scientists are not a bunch of people who go around ignoring areas with
potential for interesting research. Despite your attitude.
Alan Jeffery
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 9/10/2003
observa
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.23....@mail.utexas.edu...
people of be dogmatic. It's called projecting. Very common, most of us do
it to some extent when one of our favourite assumptions is being gored.
It's just that, in GH's case his assumption is based on complete ignorance
of how science works.
Alan Jeffery
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
Jason Cortina
wrote in message <dd2cd23a.03102...@posting.google.com>:
So because you "feel" (and *yes*, all you've described is a feeling;
neither you nor any other proponent of design has provided any empirical
evidence or clear metric by which to judge this mysterious "something
behind it") like this, you think that scientists should take seriously
the vacuous assertion that some unknown being or beings at some unknown
point or points in history used some unknown method or methods to apply
design developed for some unknown reason or reasons to some unknown
number and type of chemicals and/or some unknown number and type of
cells and/or some unknown number and type of biological systems and/or
some unknown number and type of whole organisms and/or some unknown
number and type of populations. No research into the resolution of any
of the preceding unknowns, by the (according to proponents) constantly
swelling ranks of scientists abandoning the well confirmed modern theory
of biological evolution, has been done, is currently in progress, is
planned/proposed, or even postulated as possible (even if only in
principle).
If I'm wrong about the above, please correct me.
What is posited as the possibly detectable (even if not right now)
'agent(s)/mechanism(s)' whereby ID is/was applied and what actual
research is being done (or is planned on being done) to test such
postulates?
In other words, just how is ID *NOT* an example of the 'occult'?
occult - (adj) of or relating to the occult; (noun) matters regarded as
involving the action or influence of supernatural or supernormal powers
or some secret knowledge of them.
supernatural - a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so
as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an
invisible agent.
And any reply which reduces to the Astrology Apology ("there are still
many mysteries we can't explain") without being able to provide a hint
as to how to investigate such "mysteries" can only confirm the
pseudo-scientific status of your occult view.
Of course, comparing ID to astrology is an insult to astrology. Its
adherents have claimed for centuries that the influences of the planets
are *real* and are simply beyond our (then) current state of knowledge.
They, too, offer a mathematical argument, statistical analyses *proving*
said influences.
But, unlike ID, they can actually posit quite a bit about *how* such
influences must work, some very specific attributes of their
hypothesized force/mechanism of influence: not effective before birth;
directional from certain solar system bodies; influences from different
bodies being qualitatively distinct from one another; such influences
combinatorial in that influences from different celestial bodies
amplify, modify, nullify one another depending on positions relative to
each other and relative to the background star field; and more. Nothing
even remotely as specific as these still vague attributes has been
postulated for any possible mechanisms by which ID might have been
applied.
Hard to be taken seriously as a scientific endeavor when it displays
less actual science than astrology.
If design offered anything at all even remotely scientific to consider,
scientists would consider it. With centuries to do so, design has instead
come up completely blank.
You might do well to consider the possibility that your 'feelings' may
not reflect reality in this area.
--
Jason A Cortina
You don't know what you don't know,
and you don't know you don't know it.
Hiero5ant
Happens to the best of us. (q.v. John Harshman's oblique suggestion
that I may have overreacted).
The lesson to be learned is that, without an attempt to cite specific
examples, you effectively made the assertion that everyone who disagrees
with you is intellectually dishonest. That is bound to ruffle more than a
few feathers.
> However, what I am rebelling against,
> if you can put it that way, is what I perceive as mainstream's
> dismissive attitude to anything that is not accepted by the official
> dogma.
Specific examples, please.
> That is also a characteristic of religions, you know. By the
> way, I belong to no religions whatever, I can't stand dogma.
>
> Most advances in science, the science you promote and now take for
> granted, have been made by people who swam against the main current,
> who saw beyond the accepted dogma of their time. Today is no
> different.
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that
all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed
at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
-Carl Sagan
> Even though science has become more advanced than earlier,
> in my opinion the established science community is just as hostile to
> challenges to their cherished theories and dogma as before. That has
> more to do with human nature than science, though.
Again, you're going to have to cite some specific evidence and
examples; otherwise, you're just making a sweeping bigoted insult.
> I can only say, as a lay observer when I see life's processes at work,
> that there is something behind it other than the mechanical/chemical
> reactions to external stimuli that seems to be mainstream science's
> explanation. There is some crucial ingredient missing there. There is
> simply too much intelligence and order observable. When even I, a
> layman, and many ohers like me, can see such signs of creative
> intelligence in life, any good scientist would take that possibility
> into account instead of dismissing it just because it did not fit into
> his preconceived ideology.
What "preconceived ideology" do the millions of Christians, Jews,
Muslims, and Hindus who accept the theory of evolution have?
Andy Groves
> "Hiero5ant" <vze4...@verizon.com> wrote in message news:<yNElb.14849$Vf7...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> > "GH Egilson" <gund...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:dd2cd23a.0310...@posting.google.com...
> > > Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
> > > website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> > > here.
> >
> > Greetings.
> > I have, in my life, been invited to attend numerous church groups (both
> > Catholic and Protestant), neighborhood organizations, political rallies,
> > book clubs, poetry societies, civil war reenactments, sporting events, and
> > simple family get togethers.
> > Not once in my life have the first words of introduction out of my
> > mouth been sweeping, unsubstantiated insults at the whole groups of people
> > in attendance. Not once have I undertaken to introduce myself to someone by
> > telling them that I was appalled by them.
> > I will ask you a very blunt and direct question: is your complete lack
> > of any sense of decency the result of :
> > a) your religious beliefs
> > b) the way your mother raised you, or
> > c) your own innate inability to interact politely with others?
>
> Hello again,
> I never meant to be impolite with my remarks, please accept my
> apologies if you feel that way.
"If you feel that way?"> Well excuse the heck out ofme, but didn't you
introduce yourself to the group by saying
"I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone here."
without providing even one example of such behaviour? How do you think
we would take your remarks?
>However, what I am rebelling against,
> if you can put it that way, is what I perceive as mainstream's
> dismissive attitude to anything that is not accepted by the official
> dogma.
You should be careful using words like "dogma". One meaning of dogma
is
" a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate
grounds"
That's the opposite of science. In fact, that's a nice definition of
creationism, actually.
Andy
John Harshman
Hiero5ant wrote:
As far as I can tell, this guy isn't rejecting evolution. He's demanding
that there be some intelligent force behind the universe. In other
words, ID. ID and evolution are entirely compatible in principle,
depending on just what role you think the unnamed intelligence is playing.
As it happens, he's promoting some sort of weird, new age, cosmic
vibration thing called Cymatics. Let's not make unwarranted assumptions,
as we all to frequently do, that everyone who challenges standard
science is a creationist.
Clothaire
>"GH Egilson" <gund...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dd2cd23a.0310...@posting.google.com...
>> Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
>> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
>> here. Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
>> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off.
I am always amazed by the patronizing attitude the first time to T.O.'
fundies have toward their intellectual superiors in T.O. They talk
down science using the much favored logical fallacy of 'the Argument
From Incredulity.'
>
>You've got it backwards, pal. With the exception of a few myopic
>technologists like the head of the US Patent Office circa 1900, scientists
>are only well aware of the shortcomings of their theories. Scientists KNOW
>that there are two kinds of theories: ones that have been proven false, and
>ones that will be proven false.
>
>Does this mean the ToE is completely wrong? Doubtful, but it is assuredly
>incomplete. But that's what makes science so robust. The constant iteration
>between deduction and induction to ever whittle away at ignorance and expose
>more of nature to the light of knowledge.
>
>On the other hand, religion is smug that it has all the answers. The answer
>is of course the Bible. And evidence is mangled, distorted, and outright
>fabricated to agree with the conclusion. This is what we in the scientific
>world call "ass half backward." Pseudoscience. Malarkey. Horse hockey.
>Merde.
>
>>Of
>> course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
>> most issues.
Here is someone playing both sides of the argument while arrogantly
pretending to arbitrate the recriminations.
>
>Speaking for religion, methinks you flatter it.
>
>> When mechanical science replaced religion we got e.g.
>> Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
>> relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
>> few.
>
>Wrong...Relativity and quantum theories explain two different things.
>Getting them to mesh together into a Grand Unified Theory (with
>electromagnetism, etc.) has been the life's work of more than a few great
>minds.
>
>> We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
>> of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
>> answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
>> is just like robbing a child.
>
>'Tis!
>
>> You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
>> creative intelligence at work in the universe. There is no hard
>> evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
>> anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
>> manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence. Yet
>> you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
>> that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
>> your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
>> of some chemical processes!
Finally his bias is revealed. Paley's argument was fatally flawed by
the Fallacy of Composition.
>
>Ahh...the old Paley's watch strawman argument. Obviously, you do not
>understand the first thing about ToE. Be a lamb and start by reading Darwin.
>
>If God is our designer, he is both brilliant and flawed. Perhaps God is a
>savant! Each individual cell is incredibly complex. But nerve ganglions
>create a blind spot in our vision (although the brain compensates for it).
>The trachea and the esophagus are dangerously close together.
>
>If all life is designed, why don't we observe modifications crossing
>evolutionarily perceived lines of descent? Why are all bat wings similar and
>likewise different from bird wings which in turn differ from insect wings?
>Why do all mammals have similar morphologies? Humans and bison have the same
>number of ribs. Giraffes and mice have the same number of vertebrae.
>
>> It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
>> distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
>> is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
>> undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
>> vibration or driving force behind creation.
>
>Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make evolution false. Just
>because you can't imagine the immense stretches of time that make natural
>selection possible, does not make God a requirement.
This post begins to smell like a troll.
Clothaire
"If people are good only because they fear punishment,
and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
------------
Hiero5ant
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3F9851B3...@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Hiero5ant wrote:
>
> > "GH Egilson" <gund...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:dd2cd23a.03102...@posting.google.com...
> >>I can only say, as a lay observer when I see life's processes at work,
> >>that there is something behind it other than the mechanical/chemical
> >>reactions to external stimuli that seems to be mainstream science's
> >>explanation. There is some crucial ingredient missing there. There is
> >>simply too much intelligence and order observable. When even I, a
> >>layman, and many ohers like me, can see such signs of creative
> >>intelligence in life, any good scientist would take that possibility
> >>into account instead of dismissing it just because it did not fit into
> >>his preconceived ideology.
> >>
> >
> > What "preconceived ideology" do the millions of Christians, Jews,
> > Muslims, and Hindus who accept the theory of evolution have?
>
>
> As far as I can tell, this guy isn't rejecting evolution. He's demanding
> that there be some intelligent force behind the universe. In other
> words, ID. ID and evolution are entirely compatible in principle,
> depending on just what role you think the unnamed intelligence is playing.
>
> As it happens, he's promoting some sort of weird, new age, cosmic
> vibration thing called Cymatics. Let's not make unwarranted assumptions,
> as we all to frequently do, that everyone who challenges standard
> science is a creationist.
He may or may not self-describe as a creationist (witness the varieties
of answers to the question "are Catholics creationists?" that one gets by
varying slightly multiple popular overlapping definitions of "Catholic" and
"creationist").
In the absence of such a self-description, I think you are correct to
conclude that it would be a semantic quagmire to determine whether
whatever-it-is-that-he-thinks-ism is equivalent to creationism. I would say
based on the limited evidence available that the proper level of certainty
is to say that it is arguably correct to say that he is a creationist, but I
would not commit, nor have I committed, myself to that claim.
However, my above question is orthoganal to any specific positive
beliefs he has, and was addressed purely to rebut his assertions regarding
scientists/evotees who are allegedly "ideologically biased" against
designing intelligences, by pointing out that his theory regarding the
motivations of evotees is fatally flawed by virtue of the volume of
counterexamples.
John Harshman
Hiero5ant wrote:
If you prefer, consider my comments to be directed at other posters who
have dismissed him as just another fundy. But I see absolutely no
evidence in his posts that he doubts evolution, just a bit that he
doubts the sufficiency of undirected processes. And this is probably
similar to many of those various religionists you mentioned.
Bobby D. Bryant
> As far as I can tell, this guy isn't rejecting evolution. He's demanding
> that there be some intelligent force behind the universe. In other
> words, ID. ID and evolution are entirely compatible in principle,
> depending on just what role you think the unnamed intelligence is
> playing.
>
> As it happens, he's promoting some sort of weird, new age, cosmic
> vibration thing called Cymatics. Let's not make unwarranted assumptions,
> as we all to frequently do, that everyone who challenges standard
> science is a creationist.
Of course, he has been calling it evidence for a creator...
Bobby D. Bryant
> ">
>> Sceince has a hard time with "...unseen and undetected vibration[s] or
>> driving force[s]..." What are they supposed to do? Pull out a Ouija
>> board and consult the spirits everytime they get an experimental result
>> that's a little off expectation? And why would they even resort to such
>> models when empirically verified theories *already* account for the
>> observed phenomena?
>>
>> Frank
>
>
> What I have been talking about is mostly my gut feeling from observing
> life on this planet. However, there are some experiments that validate
> my point. They do not prove it in the scientific sense, but go a long
> way. This is a system called Cymatics, developed by Swiss medical doctor
> and natural scientist, Hans Jenny (1904-1972). By using sound vibrations
> he could animate powders, pastes, and liquids into life-like, flowing
> forms which resemble biological processes and even galaxies.
>
> These are totally demonstrable and repeatable experiments which show
> that the whole universe could be powered by such, as yet, undetected
> vibration or sound. If some brave scientist would dare to risk ridicule
> and his career and develop an instrument which could detect this
> underlying vibration, we would be getting awfully close to a creator, in
> my opinion.
Why would that signify a creator? We already know of various forces and
energies that make matter behave in funny ways, and they don't obviously
point to a creator. In fact they're precisely the stuff that has
creationists whingeing about our "naturalistic" approach to understanding
the universe.
John Harshman
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
If everyone who believes in a creator is a creationist, you would have
to count many of the TO regulars, for example Stanley Friesen, or any
other Christian. I think the term is usually and more usefully given a
more restrictive definition.
Bigdakine
>From: gund...@yahoo.com (GH Egilson)
>Date: 10/22/03 11:30 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <dd2cd23a.0310...@posting.google.com>
>
>Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
>website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
>here. Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
>course when religion was mainstream we all know now it was wrong on
>Newton's law, which became outdated when we got Einsteins theory of
>relativity, which in turn is challenged by quantum theory, to name a
>few.
Newtonian Mechanics may be outdated, but is still used in any type of
mechanicle design.
Some people seem to ahve this idea, that everytime a new theory comes out, its
back to the drawing board or something.
The Eiffel Tower, designed completely on Newtonian principles did not topple
over in 1905.
>
>We have just scratched a tiny bit of the surface concerning this world
>of ours, and you think mainstream science already has all the
>answers!!? It's easy to compare it with religion and feel superior, it
>is just like robbing a child.
>
Religions do an awful job of explaining natural phenomena.
>You do not have to involve religion at all to be inclined towards a
>creative intelligence at work in the universe. There is no hard
>evidence for a creation, no label which reads "Made in Heaven" on
>anything, but when you look at a car or a computer or any other
>manmade thing, you KNOW that it was created by an intelligence.
Well that is funny. Virtually everything created by intelligence that we're
familiar with does have *Made in So and So* or something like that.
Yet
>you have all the teeming life on this planet, which screams at you
>that there is an intelligence at work here, and you still keep banging
>your heads against stone and claim that this is just a chance result
>of some chemical processes!
>
Yet remarkably the maker didn't put made by *so and so* anywhere.
>It is understandable that science at the time wished to create a
>distance from religion with all its nonsense and superstition, but it
>is time now for it to grow up and realise that there is an
>undercurrent of intelligent, but as yet unseen and undetected
>vibration or driving force behind creation.
>
Perhaps. Then again perhaps not. Until there is a bona fide ID theory, it can
not be considered by science.
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Bobby D. Bryant
Yeah, the terminology is problematic.
Earle Jones
Clothaire <clot...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:11:30 +0000 (UTC), "Geoff Offermann"
> <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >"GH Egilson" <gund...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:dd2cd23a.0310...@posting.google.com...
> >> Hello, I am new here, I discovered this group through the Talk.origins
> >> website. I just became appalled at this arrogant, "we know all" tone
> >> here. Just know that mainstream science/opinion has never in known
> >> history had all the answers, and most of the time been way off.
>
> I am always amazed by the patronizing attitude the first time to T.O.'
> fundies have toward their intellectual superiors in T.O. They talk
> down science using the much favored logical fallacy of 'the Argument
> From Incredulity.'
> >
> >You've got it backwards, pal. With the exception of a few myopic
> >technologists like the head of the US Patent Office circa 1900, scientists
> >are only well aware of the shortcomings of their theories. Scientists KNOW
> >that there are two kinds of theories: ones that have been proven false, and
> >ones that will be proven false...
*
This last sentence must be nominated for the "Chez Watt?" award for
October with full credit(?) to the poster, Geoff Offeremann.
"Scientists KNOW that there are two kinds of theories: ones that
have been proven false, and ones that will be proven false."
In other words, all theories are false. It is just a matter of time
before they are proved so.
earle
*
Geoff Offermann
news:earle.jones-22BF...@netnews.attbi.com...
That's right. All theories are provisional.
Earle Jones
"Geoff Offermann" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
[...]
Scientists
> KNOW
> > > >that there are two kinds of theories: ones that have been proven false,
> and
> > > >ones that will be proven false...
> >
> > *
> > This last sentence must be nominated for the "Chez Watt?" award for
> > October with full credit(?) to the poster, Geoff Offeremann.
> >
> > "Scientists KNOW that there are two kinds of theories: ones that
> > have been proven false, and ones that will be proven false."
> >
> > In other words, all theories are false. It is just a matter of time
> > before they are proved so.
>
> That's right. All theories are provisional.
>
*
I agree with that. All theories are provisional.
But you said that all theories are false, eventually. Either they have
been proven false in the past, or they will be proven false in the
future.
There's a helluva difference -- even though you don't understand it.
earle
*
Johnny Bravo
<vze4...@verizon.com> wrote:
> Oh, come on now. Tell me you've honestly never wondered what it would
>be like to spend an afternoon with one of the spammers who posts the "Add 3
>inches to your manliness!!!!!!" things...
Does that afternoon involve a baseball bat and immunity from
prosectuion?
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
Johnny Bravo
>I never meant to be impolite with my remarks, please accept my
>if you can put it that way, is what I perceive as mainstream's
>dismissive attitude to anything that is not accepted by the official
>way, I belong to no religions whatever, I can't stand dogma.
>
>Most advances in science, the science you promote and now take for
>granted, have been made by people who swam against the main current,
>who saw beyond the accepted dogma of their time.
How good of you to let the entire world know this, scientists must
have never noticed this before and blocked every potential ground
breaking discovery in every field. On reflection, they didn't.
Mainstream scientists don't dismiss knowledge with good evidence to
support it. They tend to take a dim view on people who claim that
established, well supported knowledge is wrong with no convincing
evidence to support the claim.
>I can only say, as a lay observer when I see life's processes at work,
>that there is something behind it other than the mechanical/chemical
>reactions to external stimuli that seems to be mainstream science's
>explanation. There is some crucial ingredient missing there.
Argument from Incredulity is a logical flaw. "Just because you
don't believe it" is not evidence.
>There is simply too much intelligence and order observable.
Oh god, another advocate of the snowflake fairies. "There is too
much order in snowflakes, they cannot all be forming this complex,
every one unique by chance alone; they must have been designed."
So along comes your support for the "theory" that tiny invisible
fairies assemble snowflakes. So, do you support the Snowflake Theory
or are you a hypocrite that only sees "intelligence" when it suits
your personal beliefs.
Geoff Offermann
I know...I certainly didn't word that quite right...
Mike Dworetsky
"GH Egilson" <gund...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd2cd23a.03102...@posting.google.com...
> ">
> > Sceince has a hard time with "...unseen and undetected vibration[s] or
> > driving force[s]..." What are they supposed to do? Pull out a Ouija
board
> > and consult the spirits everytime they get an experimental result that's
a
> > little off expectation? And why would they even resort to such models
when
> > empirically verified theories *already* account for the observed
phenomena?
> >
> > Frank
>
>
> What I have been talking about is mostly my gut feeling from observing
> life on this planet. However, there are some experiments that validate
> my point. They do not prove it in the scientific sense, but go a long
> way. This is a system called Cymatics, developed by Swiss medical
> doctor and natural scientist, Hans Jenny (1904-1972). By using sound
> vibrations he could animate powders, pastes, and liquids into
> life-like, flowing forms which resemble biological processes and even
> galaxies.
>
But are these powders and liquids really alive, or just bouncing around
because some clearly physical force is pushing on them? The difference is
fairly critical!
If "life" is due to some higher being exerting a mysterious force on us, is
there some objective, scientific way we could measure it? Just answer yes
or no. If yes, be specific about the method and equipment to be used, the
statistical analysis to evaluate the significance of the results, etc. If
no, then what you are saying is not science but religion.
> These are totally demonstrable and repeatable experiments which show
> that the whole universe could be powered by such, as yet, undetected
> vibration or sound. If some brave scientist would dare to risk
> ridicule and his career and develop an instrument which could detect
> this underlying vibration, we would be getting awfully close to a
> creator, in my opinion.
>
> The Cymatics website is here: http://www.cymaticsource.com/index.html
>
> It is truly fascinating to see how closely the vibrations resemble
> processes in nature. So, there you have tangible evidence of what I am
> talking about.
>
> GHE
And I can make something that looks like a spiral galaxy by slowly stirring
some cream into my coffee. But it isn't a galaxy, it's still a cup of
coffee. The difference is pretty important.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
Frank Reichenbacher
> > driving force[s]..." What are they supposed to do? Pull out a Ouija
board
> > and consult the spirits everytime they get an experimental result that's
a
> > little off expectation? And why would they even resort to such models
when
> > empirically verified theories *already* account for the observed
phenomena?
> >
> > Frank
>
>
> What I have been talking about is mostly my gut feeling from observing
> life on this planet. However, there are some experiments that validate
> my point. They do not prove it in the scientific sense, but go a long
> way. This is a system called Cymatics, developed by Swiss medical
> doctor and natural scientist,
Oh for the love of Mike. Cymatics is gee whiz nonsense for gullible New Age
screwballs.
Hans Jenny (1904-1972). By using sound
> vibrations he could animate powders, pastes, and liquids into
> life-like, flowing forms which resemble biological processes and even
> galaxies.
Resemble, but are emphatically *not*.
>
> These are totally demonstrable and repeatable experiments which show
> that the whole universe could be powered by such, as yet, undetected
> vibration or sound.
No they do not. All they show is the effects of sound waves on particles in
fluids.
If some brave scientist would dare to risk
> ridicule and his career and develop an instrument which could detect
> this underlying vibration,
It's been done. Turns out your statement is correct, though not for the
reasons you think. All objects in the universe radiate electromagnetic
energy. Electromagnetism is a wave phenomenon with the vibrational frequency
proportional to the energy level of the wave.
In addition, the nuclei of all atoms vibrate. Here is an abstract of a paper
presented at the 2002 American Physical Society meetingon nuclear vibration:
__________________________________________
Prediction of a nuclear quantum number for vibration, prediction of an
electron quantum number of vibration, postulate of a new constant :vibration
wavelength vs deBroglie wavelength
Stewart E Brekke (Northeastern Illinois University)
Nuclear vibration was not known when quantum mechanics was invented. Now
that nuclear vibration is known and is actually taken into account in
vibrational spectra of molecules, the possibility of a new quantum number
for nuclei may exist besides other parameters such as the Bohr magneton. A
new quantum number for electrons besides the standard four quantum numbers
may exist, possibly v = vibrational quantum number for electrons and other
elementary particles. A new constant, B= the ratio of the actual wavelength
to the de Broglie wavelength, may exist.
Since most basic formulas for the quantum atom were developed in the 1930's
to 50's, nuclear vibration was not taken into account and by includng
nuclear vibration through a reworking of many basic modern physics formulas
possibly a reconciliation between theory and experiment will occur.
__________________________________________
http://www.eps.org/aps/meet/DNP02/baps/abs/S1460014.html
we would be getting awfully close to a
> creator, in my opinion.
Some physicists think they are, although not for anything like the reasons
you think we are.
>
> The Cymatics website is here: http://www.cymaticsource.com/index.html
>
> It is truly fascinating to see how closely the vibrations resemble
> processes in nature. So, there you have tangible evidence of what I am
> talking about.
The pictures are very nice and Jenny is an artist. That's as far as it goes.
Conning gullible people like you into the belief that there is more to it
than that is charlatanism.
Frank
>
> GHE
>
Earle Jones
"Frank Reichenbacher" <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
> "GH Egilson" <gund...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dd2cd23a.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > ">
> > > Sceince has a hard time with "...unseen and undetected vibration[s] or
> > > driving force[s]..." What are they supposed to do? Pull out a Ouija
> board
> > > and consult the spirits everytime they get an experimental result that's
> a
> > > little off expectation? And why would they even resort to such models
> when
> > > empirically verified theories *already* account for the observed
> phenomena?
> > >
> > > Frank
> >
> >
> > What I have been talking about is mostly my gut feeling from observing
> > life on this planet. However, there are some experiments that validate
> > my point. They do not prove it in the scientific sense, but go a long
> > way. This is a system called Cymatics, developed by Swiss medical
> > doctor and natural scientist,
>
> Oh for the love of Mike. Cymatics is gee whiz nonsense for gullible New Age
> screwballs.
*
Whaddaya mean, screwballs??? Cymatics is back in great demand!!
See: http://www.cymaticsource.com/
"Cymatics: A Study of Wave Phenomena by Hans Jenny - Vols. I and II
Back in Print by Popular Demand! For decades, students of Sacred
Geometry, Mandalas, New Science, Metaphysics, Sound Healing and even
Crop Circles have coveted these hard-to-find volumes. This new
release, comprehensive edition portrays fascinating experiments using
audible sound to excite powders, pastes and liquids into life-like,
flowing forms."
That proves that God exists, the Republicans are right, Tammy Faye
Bakker is a virgin, and the Marlins will beat the Yankees.
earle
*
Geoff Offermann
news:fGpmb.10614$9E1.55029@attbi_s52...
I guess I was trying to emphasize that theories are never proven true. They
are only proven false. I guess my fingers got a bit ahead of my puny brain.
AC
Can someone describe this to me. The way the poster described it, it is
nothing more than soundwaves moving various powders around. We used to do
that with baby powder or iron filings on drums or on metal plates on top of
stereo speakers.
--
Aaron Clausen
catshark
Aphorisms are supposed to catchy, not subtle and completely accurate. How
about this:
"There are two kinds of theories: ones that have been proven false, and
ones that are waiting to be proven false."
[As all eventually are in *some* particular, to *some* degree.]
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
- Robert Carroll -
catshark
<geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
[...]
>>I know...I certainly didn't word that quite right...
>Aphorisms are supposed to catchy, not subtle and completely accurate.
>How about this:
>"There are two kinds of theories: ones that have been proven false,
>and ones that are waiting to be proven false."
Damn! I knew that sounded familiar!
"Planets rotate around the sun" still should be considered " a surviving
theory" waiting to be falsified.
Popper's theory of epistemology:
a perpetual falsifiable journey towards truth
<http://www.yuksel.org/e/philosophy/falsifiability.htm>
I guess I don't need to contact Wilkins' agent about collecting royalties
quite yet . . .
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
To be sure, numerous dear friends have offered
the explanation that, deep within me, there rests
an artfully concealed vein of stupidity,
but this theory has somehow never commended itself to me.
Unfortunately, I have no alternate explanation to suggest.
--Isaac Asimov --
Tom Felker
> Most advances in science, the science you promote and now take for
> granted, have been made by people who swam against the main current,
> who saw beyond the accepted dogma of their time. Today is no
> different. Even though science has become more advanced than earlier,
> in my opinion the established science community is just as hostile to
> challenges to their cherished theories and dogma as before. That has
> more to do with human nature than science, though.
Everyone laughed at Einstein. Everyone laughed at Watson and Crick. But
people laughing at you doesn't lend credence to your theories.
You're pushing these vibrations as a method by which a creator could
create and control life. If the vibrations have an effect, then let's get
on with detecting them, and you'll get less laughter. If they aren't
detectable, they must not have an effect, so why should we care?
--
Tom Felker, <tcfe...@mtco.com>
<http://vlevel.sourceforge.net> - Stop fiddling with the volume knob.
Who's the more foolish... the fool or the fool who follows him?
-- Obi-Wan
Dana Tweedy
> What I have been talking about is mostly my gut feeling from observing
> life on this planet. However, there are some experiments that validate
> my point. They do not prove it in the scientific sense, but go a long
> way. This is a system called Cymatics, developed by Swiss medical
> doctor and natural scientist, Hans Jenny (1904-1972). By using sound
> vibrations he could animate powders, pastes, and liquids into
> life-like, flowing forms which resemble biological processes and even
> galaxies.
When I was younger, I had a "electric football" game where a plate of steel
was vibrated by an electromagnet. It could "animate" a bunch of plastic
figures in movements which resembled (vaguely) a football game, without the
passing. Does that mean that football stadiums have electromagnets in the
base which make the players move?
DJT
AC
Hey! You stumbled on to the football cabal's secrets. I'd change my name
and move to a new state if I were you. When Frank Gifford gets a hold of
you, boy is it gonna be ugly.
--
Aaron Clausen
Frank Reichenbacher
"AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbpla4d...@clausen.alberni.net...
You're impression is correct. Cymatics is just sound waves moving through
various kinds of particles. Welcome to the New Age of science. You thought
creationists were scary, wait til you meet up with the New Agers.
I live not far from Sedona, Arizona, a New Age vortex of "spiritual energy".
Every day, all day long, the screwballs are making their little shrines and
crystal temples to God knows what.
Frank
>
> --
> Aaron Clausen
>
> tao...@alberni.net
>
AC
Frank Reichenbacher <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
>
> "AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbpla4d...@clausen.alberni.net...
>>
>> nothing more than soundwaves moving various powders around. We used to do
>> that with baby powder or iron filings on drums or on metal plates on top
> of
>> stereo speakers.
>
> You're impression is correct. Cymatics is just sound waves moving through
> various kinds of particles. Welcome to the New Age of science. You thought
> creationists were scary, wait til you meet up with the New Agers.
Why am I not surprised?
>
> I live not far from Sedona, Arizona, a New Age vortex of "spiritual energy".
> Every day, all day long, the screwballs are making their little shrines and
> crystal temples to God knows what.
Well, if you can't fool them with the old bullshit, make up some new stuff.
Look what L. Ron Hubbard has accomplished. Of course, I have this suspicion
that fooling the likes of John Travolta and Tom Cruise isn't necessarily all
that hard.
--
Aaron Clausen
catshark
wrote:
Damn! I knew that sounded familiar . . .
"Planets rotate around the sun" still should be considered
"a surviving theory" waiting to be falsified.
Popper's theory of epistemology:
a perpetual falsifiable journey towards truth
<http://www.yuksel.org/e/philosophy/falsifiability.htm>
I guess I can hold off on contacting Wilkins' lawyer to see how to go about
collecting royalties . . .
Earle Jones
AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote:
*
It appears that you are not aware of the difference between
electromagnetic waves (for example, AM radio, FM radio, Radar,
Infra-red, visible, ultraviolet, x-rays, etc. ) to name them all in
order from low frequency (long wavelength) to high frequency (short
wavelength) and sound waves, which require a medium for transfer. A
sound wave is a mechanical wave that requires intermediate molecules
to transmit the wave.
Sound waves do not travel through a vacuum; electromagnetic waves do.
Cymatics is indeed, new-age nonsense, like crop-circles, encoded
mysteries in the Bible, and heavenly geometry, whatever the hell that
is.
Your "gut feeling" has no relationship to any reality, at least
outside your own mind. They do not "go a long way" to prove anything,
either in a scientific sense, or in any other sense.
You need to learn, and not to teach. You have a *very* long way to go
before you are able to teach anything to this group of readers.
earle
*
David Jensen
<earle.jones-76F0...@netnews.attbi.com>:
Batting .250.
John Wilkins
Actually, earle, I think *you* don't get it. The *second* that a theory
is revised to be more accurate, it in its old form has been logically
falsified. That could include a single decimal place at the 50th
position. Logically it doesn't matter. Truth (in logic, anyway) is all
or nothing.
Popperian falsification was founded on that logical theorem (the
so-called modus tollens) that, as Popper put it, if we find that a
deductive consequence of an argument is false (in any degree whatever)
then the *entire* theory and premises as a single set is false.
Either Putnam or Laudan, I think, noted that this means that in logical
terms, all theories that are amenable to modification in the light of
experience, and which are not 100% accurate now, will be shown to be
false later.
It's a counterintuitive virtue of science.
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Earle Jones
AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:43:41 +0000 (UTC),
> Frank Reichenbacher <fr...@bio-con.com> wrote:
> >
> > "AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
> > news:slrnbpla4d...@clausen.alberni.net...
> >>
> >> Can someone describe this to me. The way the poster described it, it is
> >> nothing more than soundwaves moving various powders around. We used to do
> >> that with baby powder or iron filings on drums or on metal plates on top
> > of
> >> stereo speakers.
> >
> > You're impression is correct. Cymatics is just sound waves moving through
> > various kinds of particles. Welcome to the New Age of science. You thought
> > creationists were scary, wait til you meet up with the New Agers.
>
> Why am I not surprised?
>
> >
> > I live not far from Sedona, Arizona, a New Age vortex of "spiritual energy".
> > Every day, all day long, the screwballs are making their little shrines and
> > crystal temples to God knows what....
*
That cheap crap will die out -- a natural death, no doubt.
Primarily because it will produce no result -- no follow-on
philosophy, no new dream, no new prediction.
But new, equally ignorant "philosophies" will crop up based on new and
equally irrational fundamentals. Sometimes I feel like I could start
a new cult myself -- it wouldn't be that difficult. Just find some
unbelievable symbol (unbelievability is a definite requirement), spend
a couple of bucks raising a few dozen uneducated rednecks and hire a
local radio station in Alabama, or Texas, or Georgia, or Mississippi
to carry the "revelation".
Hey! I think I've found a new calling!
earle
*
Oh my brothers! Bring your sisters and come here now! Come to me
with your heads bowed to our God and I can save your sinning body.
Come to me and I will bless you and keep you, and forgive the terrible
sins that you know you have committed; sins so deep and profound that
you cannot even discuss with anyone except me.
Confess your sins to me and I will promise you (on a money-back basis)
that you will be forever free for the life hereafter -- you will float
about the angels in heaven when it comes your time to give up your
sinful body to the spirits above.
Without my guidance and direction, you will go to the eternal flames
of damnation -- the lake of boiling brimstone (molten sulfur -- see
Revelations) where you will spend the eternity roasting your worthless
body in excruciating pain, together with your subsequent generations
who will also pay for your sins, even unto the third and fourth
generations of those who doubt me.
Offer to my holy ministry a mere pittance of your wealth -- I know you
don't have much, but you *must* have something -- otherwise I will
know that you are just making a mockery of my holy ministry. Give
until it hurts. Send me the rent money that you would normally pay to
the sinning landlord who collects that exorbitant monthly rent on your
double-wide motor home, fixed in the land of the wicked and sinful.
Give up your wealth, your riches, give unto God. "For inasmuch as you
have given unto the least of these, you have given unto me." Those
are the words of God, my friend. Give unto me -- it's the same as
giving unto God.
My god is going to punish me if I do not give unto him that which is
his rightfully. I owe him everything -- and so do you. You must give
unto me, and I will give unto God. That way, we will both be saved
from the boiling lake of brimstone.
God will take away my holy ministry if you don't give more money to
me. I will not be able to save your sinful body if you don't provide
me with the meager bit of money that I need to continue my holy
providential message.
Don't let your God take away my ministry -- it is the platform of your
salvation. Give today. Give more! More! More!
*
Reverend Pastor C. Homer Redwine
*
Mike Dworetsky
"Geoff Offermann" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NYzmb.13072$275.26748@attbi_s53...
The real point is not that scientific theories are eventually proven false
(many have never been shown to be false) but that scientific theories are in
principle falsifiable through experiment and observation. They can also be
refined and extended without the original premise being wholly falsified, a
good example being the relationship of Newtonian gravitational theory to
General Relativity. However if no experiment, no matter how clever and
carefully conceived and executed, actually does falsify a theory, then
provisionally we accept it, because it would be perverse not to do so in the
light of the piles of evidence. Then we use it to make further predictions
which can be tested with new experiments.
Quantum mechanics is a fine example of this process.
This is a far cry from the statement that all theories are false, and it is
only a matter of time before any given theory is shown to be false.
TomS
<bsrkpv0p24jr8clib...@4ax.com>, catshark stated..."
[...snip...]
>Aphorisms are supposed to catchy, not subtle and completely accurate. How
>about this:
>
>"There are two kinds of theories: ones that have been proven false, and
>ones that are waiting to be proven false."
>
>[As all eventually are in *some* particular, to *some* degree.]
"All aphorisms are catchy, some are subtle, but none are completely
accurate."
catshark
wrote:
;-) Do I get any of the credit if it catches on?
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
Johnny Bravo
<cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"There are two kinds of theories: ones that have been proven false, and
>ones that are waiting to be proven false."
>
>[As all eventually are in *some* particular, to *some* degree.]
Ok, how about. There are two kinds of theories; ones that have been
proven false and ones that are waiting to be proven false or
incomplete. <grin>
Johnny Bravo
I won't be too worried until they start blowing up unbelievers.
I have no problem with a passive religion, you can believe anything
you want to on your own time, you can indoctrinate your own children
with anything you want to on your own time. Just leave other people
alone, don't try to get access to other people's children so you can
try to indoctrinate them and we'll get along fine.
Dana Tweedy
"Johnny Bravo" <nos...@no.com> wrote in message
news:2usnpvkggt0umg43p...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:27:25 +0000 (UTC), catshark
> <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"There are two kinds of theories: ones that have been proven false, and
> >ones that are waiting to be proven false."
> >
> >[As all eventually are in *some* particular, to *some* degree.]
>
> Ok, how about. There are two kinds of theories; ones that have been
> proven false and ones that are waiting to be proven false or
> incomplete. <grin>
There are three kinds of people, those who can count, those who can't.
DJT
catshark
wrote:
>
No one expects the Spanish . . .
Oh, never mind.
Johnny Bravo
<twe...@cvn.net> wrote:
There are 10 kinds of people, those who know binary and those who
don't.
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>> There are three kinds of people, those who can count, those who can't.
>
>There are 10 kinds of people, those who can count in binary and those
>who can't.
Beat me to it. ok.
There are two kinds of people, those who divide people into two
groups... <grin>
John Wilkins
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:48:44 +0000 (UTC), Kjell Stahl <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> There are three kinds of people, those who can count, those who can't.
> >
> >There are 10 kinds of people, those who can count in binary and those
> >who can't.
>
> Beat me to it. ok.
> There are two kinds of people, those who divide people into two
> groups... <grin>
... those who don't, and those who just don't care.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Johnny Bravo <nos...@no.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:48:44 +0000 (UTC), Kjell Stahl <m...@privacy.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> There are three kinds of people, those who can count, those who can't.
>> >
>> >There are 10 kinds of people, those who can count in binary and those
>> >who can't.
>>
>> Beat me to it. ok.
>> There are two kinds of people, those who divide people into two
>> groups... <grin>
>
> ... those who don't, and those who just don't care.
There's only one type of person!
.... those who make absurd generalizations.
John Wilkins
Organization: Race towards an early grave
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.8)
NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Trace: news.unimelb.edu.au 1067233537 128.250.252.193 (27 Oct 2003 16:45:37 +1000)
X-Original-Trace: 27 Oct 2003 16:45:37 +1000, machine193.wehi.edu.au
Lines: 28
Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
> John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
> > Johnny Bravo <nos...@no.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:48:44 +0000 (UTC), Kjell Stahl <m...@privacy.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> There are three kinds of people, those who can count, those who can't.
> >> >
> >> >There are 10 kinds of people, those who can count in binary and those
> >> >who can't.
> >>
> >> Beat me to it. ok.
> >> There are two kinds of people, those who divide people into two
> >> groups... <grin>
> >
> > ... those who don't, and those who just don't care.
>
> There's only one type of person!
> .... those who make absurd generalizations.
All generalisations are false.
Johnny Bravo
Wilkins) wrote:
>> > ... those who don't, and those who just don't care.
>>
>> There's only one type of person!
>> .... those who make absurd generalizations.
>
>All generalisations are false.
91.67% of statistics are made up to support a creationists argument.
John Wilkins
Organization: Race towards an early grave
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.8)
NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Original-Trace: 27 Oct 2003 20:46:50 +1000, machine193.wehi.edu.au
Lines: 20
Johnny Bravo <nos...@no.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 05:45:27 +0000 (UTC), wil...@wehi.edu.au (John
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >> > ... those who don't, and those who just don't care.
> >>
> >> There's only one type of person!
> >> .... those who make absurd generalizations.
> >
> >All generalisations are false.
>
> 91.67% of statistics are made up to support a creationists argument.
But there's a confidence interval of +/- 90% on that statement.
TomS
<1g3hx9r.1eetrcb19ol24mN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>3f9c...@news.qut.edu.au>
>Organization: Race towards an early grave
>User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.8)
>NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
>X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
>X-Trace: news.unimelb.edu.au 1067233537 128.250.252.193 (27 Oct 2003 16:45:37
>+1000)
>X-Original-Trace: 27 Oct 2003 16:45:37 +1000, machine193.wehi.edu.au
>Lines: 28
>
>Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
>> > Johnny Bravo <nos...@no.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:48:44 +0000 (UTC), Kjell Stahl <m...@privacy.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> There are three kinds of people, those who can count, those who can't.
>> >> >
>> >> >There are 10 kinds of people, those who can count in binary and those
>> >> >who can't.
>> >>
>> >> Beat me to it. ok.
>> >> There are two kinds of people, those who divide people into two
>> >> groups... <grin>
>> >
>> > ... those who don't, and those who just don't care.
>>
>> There's only one type of person!
>> .... those who make absurd generalizations.
>
>All generalisations are false.
You can't prove a negative.