An Appology to Chris Thompson over the facts surrounding his initiation of the Heliocentric/GeoCentric Battle
T Pagano
initiation of the Heliocentric/GeoCentric Battle.
At the time I accused Thompson of throwing Dworetsky under the bus and
then running away. I discovered my error today while doing some Web
research about Dworetsky's latest claim concerning the path of orbital
vehicles after launch.
I had wrongly assumed that Dworetsky was just another knowledgable
amateur. I essentially accused Thomspon of throwing the "amateur"
under the bus and then fleeing. I was wrong. I learned today that
Dworetsky is Dr Dworetsky, Lecturer in Astronomy. That is, he was
more than knowledgeable, he is an expert. As such pointing me in
Dworetsky's direction and stepping out of the way was approrpriate.
Regards,
T Pagano
Adam R.
anyone care about your judgements of credibility?
--
Adam
Mike Dworetsky
> An Appology to Chris Thompson over the facts surrounding his
> initiation of the Heliocentric/GeoCentric Battle.
>
> At the time I accused Thompson of throwing Dworetsky under the bus and
> then running away. I discovered my error today while doing some Web
> research about Dworetsky's latest claim concerning the path of orbital
> vehicles after launch.
>
> I had wrongly assumed that Dworetsky was just another knowledgable
> amateur. I essentially accused Thomspon of throwing the "amateur"
As you have demonstrated that you do not regard the knowledge, opinions and
judgments of experts as of any worth (e.g., Steve Carlip, me) if they
conflict with your opinions, what difference does it make?
> under the bus and then fleeing. I was wrong. I learned today that
> Dworetsky is Dr Dworetsky, Lecturer in Astronomy. That is, he was
> more than knowledgeable, he is an expert. As such pointing me in
> Dworetsky's direction and stepping out of the way was approrpriate.
It certainly puts your continuous claims of victory and howls of "crash and
burn" in a different light, but it changes nothing essential.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ray Martinez
In other messages, in other topics (in the past), I have not hesitated
to point out that unless the author included his educational
credentials in post signature then we would not be able to ascertain
the fact by message content. The fact that Dworetsky chose not to
disclose his credentials means he very much understands that in **this
context** the fact is completely worthless.
Ray
Boikat
Aside from being a god-smacked drooling idiot, especially when it
comes to science, *what are your credentials*?
Boikat
pnyikos
Hey, he was man enough to admit that he was wrong about someone whom
he had disparaged. What percentage of people posting here can make
the same claim?
Peter Nyikos
Ray Martinez
Before the rise of Darwinism, 99 percent of all scientists were
credentialed Creationists.
Boikat, unlike Dwortesky, does not understand that when claims are
being challenged (which is the context here), credentials are
irrelevant.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Before the rise of Darwinism, 99 percent of all scientists were
credentialed Creationists (but they were completely wrong about
nature).
Ray
*Hemidactylus*
Hey Pagano. You might want to coantact an attorney, because if Apple Inc
sees your spelling of Appology, they might thinking you're moving in on
their intellectual property. They are already after Microsoft and
Amazon. Just a word to the wise.
*Hemidactylus*
There are a lot of PhDs posting here any many don't go flaunting it
either. They post as regular folk and you should be the one who
recognizes the validity of their arguments in the area of their
expertise without having to have a PhD affixed to their signature.
OTOH we have had MDs post here and medical doctors usually wear that
badge with pride as they are handed their severed ass back to them. Just
because you have limited practical knowledge of how human bodies work
and can fix them, that gives you no authority on non-human systems. I'd
prefer the opinion of a knowledgable veterinarian who needs to be
familiar with several if not many different living systems. And an MD is
kinda like a glorified car mechanic really. Do car mechanics have deep
knowledge of the systems they work on beyond the practical knowledge of
how to fix them?
Or is the average geek squad guy conversant in discrete math or multiple
programming languages? They could add RAM to your PC or remove a virus
(akin to what an MD does). An A+ certification is not a PhD in computer
science, just like an MD is not a PhD in evolutionary biology or related
fields.
And how often do PhDs in computer science make asses of themselves when
delving into evolutionary topics, thinking computers are like living
systems or that C+ or machine language is akin to DNA speak? Or that
CPU, memory and disk/disc storage have analogs to how the brain works?
*Hemidactylus*
but strength of arguments should be all that is necessary. Ray lacks
that. An education and degree would help remedy those shortfalls, but
might wind up making him realize his follies.
Walter Bushell
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And how often do PhDs in computer science make asses of themselves when
> delving into evolutionary topics, thinking computers are like living
> systems or that C+ or machine language is akin to DNA speak? Or that
> CPU, memory and disk/disc storage have analogs to how the brain works?
Absurd. Actually it's Objective C that is akin to DNA.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Walter Bushell
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
He has lots of BS about biology.
chris thompson
Before the rise of Copernicumism (sic) 99 percent of astronomers were
geocentrists.
Before the rise of tectonism, 99 percent of geologists were
continental-fixists.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
You are a....
never mind.
Chris
Boikat
What evidence do you have to support that figure, and what are your
credentials that give your claim anything remotely resembling
legitimacy?
Boikat
Boikat
What orifice did you pull that figure out of?
>
> Boikat, unlike Dwortesky, does not understand that when claims are
> being challenged (which is the context here), credentials are
> irrelevant.
So why are credentials important when a creationist claim is
challenged? I smell hypocrisy.
Also, the credentials of those *making* the claim is important, such
as your claim that you have evidence that refutes the ToE.
So, what are *your* credentials?
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
He never, ever, made a public claim that I was some sort of ignorant
amateur. So his disparagements were based on what I said, not who I was.
And I don't think it really makes much difference. I am not exactly hiding
behind a pseudonym; a simple search on my name turns up many references to
articles I have published, my (fairly pathetic) university home page, etc,
and it would not have been difficult for Pagano to find out just who he was
dealing with, long before just the other day.
Rolf
As relevant as saying "Before we knew anything, we knew nothing." So what?
Typical nonsense from Ray.
> Boikat, unlike Dwortesky, does not understand that when claims are
> being challenged (which is the context here), credentials are
> irrelevant.
>
Meaning: An idiot's opinion is just as valid as a scientist's, therefore
Ray's opinions are as relevant as any scientist's.
> Ray
Randy C
> > credentialed Creationists (but they were completely wrong about
> > nature).
>
> > Ray
> Before the rise of Copernicumism (sic) 99 percent of astronomers were
> geocentrists.
> Before the rise of tectonism, 99 percent of geologists were
> continental-fixists.
> SO FUCKING WHAT?
Moreover, before the rise of Copernicumism 99 percent of Biblical
literalists were geocentrists.
So whatever point Ray is trying to make - and that point is currently
very obscure indeed - it applies to his beliefs as well.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
In Biology my credentials are the same as John Wilkins and Ronald
Fisher; in the History of Science my credentials are the same as John
Harshman and Daniel Dennett.
Ray
Ray Martinez
According to Dr. John van Wyhe (historian of science/Atheist) the
figure is actually 100 pecent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvpQ5Lyah50
2:16--2:25 (for 100 percent claim): ALL scientists religious, not
evolutionists, not Atheists, not young earth creationists.
00:00--4:01 (for necessary context supporting 100 percent claim).
Van Wyhe's credentials page:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/people/van_wyhe.html
>
>
> > Boikat, unlike Dwortesky, does not understand that when claims are
> > being challenged (which is the context here), credentials are
> > irrelevant.
>
> So why are credentials important when a creationist claim is
> challenged? I smell hypocrisy.
>
You were the one who asked.
Ray
> Also, the credentials of those *making* the claim is important, such
> as your claim that you have evidence that refutes the ToE.
>
> So, what are *your* credentials?
>
Ray Martinez
wrote:
Boikat (your brother) is saying because I do not have a college degree
whatever I say concerning ToE is automatically false. He is making a
classic Argument From Authority. Conversely, he is saying, 'Darwinists
with degrees are automatically correct.' In response I am reminding
him and others that before the rise of Darwinism every credentialed
naturalist rejected natural evolution, including Professor Owen and
Professor Huxley.
In 1930, Ronald Fisher published the groundbreaking "The Genetical
Theory Of Natural Selection." IIRC, Richard Dawkins said Fisher was
the most important scientist since Darwin. Fisher had no degree in
Biology and was Professor of Eugenics (= white superiority).
Shall I continue....?
Let me know.
Ray
> You are a....
>
> never mind.
>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
Boikat
I would venture that their academic exposure is much greater, and more
authoritative than yours.
Boikat
Boikat
That's streatching the definition of "creationist" well outside that
of modern (note that) usange.
> > > Boikat, unlike Dwortesky, does not understand that when claims are
> > > being challenged (which is the context here), credentials are
> > > irrelevant.
>
> > So why are credentials important when a creationist claim is
> > challenged? I smell hypocrisy.
>
> You were the one who asked.
And I still smell hypocrisy.
Boikat
Boikat
No relation. Your mistake.
> is saying because I do not have a college degree
> whatever I say concerning ToE is automatically false.
No, actually. I'm saying anything you say against the ToE is
questionable becuse you're a god-smaked idiot.
> He is making a
> classic Argument From Authority.
Nope. "Argument from observation". Besides that, fool, an "argument
from authority" is a logical falacy when the "authority" is not an
authority within his field of expertice. Citing the opinion of a
credentialed biologist in matters of biology, such as evolution, is
not a logical fallacy. Citing opinion a degreed electrical engineer
as being authoritative on matters of biology, could be.
> Conversely, he is saying, 'Darwinists
> with degrees are automatically correct.'
Nope, I'm saying "they are probably more informed than you". (or me,
for that matter).
> In response I am reminding
> him and others that before the rise of Darwinism every credentialed
> naturalist rejected natural evolution, including Professor Owen and
> Professor Huxley.
Is there any chance you can relate that to *modern* creationism?
>
> In 1930, Ronald Fisher published the groundbreaking "The Genetical
> Theory Of Natural Selection." IIRC, Richard Dawkins said Fisher was
> the most important scientist since Darwin. Fisher had no degree in
> Biology and was Professor of Eugenics (= white superiority).
I smell an attempt at "guilt by association", and "eugenics" does not
automatically = white superiority.
>
> Shall I continue....?
Only if you feel a compelling need to make yourself look like an ass.
>
> Let me know.
That's up to you. If you want to make yourself look like a brainless
yokle, that's your business.
Boikat
Burkhard
Not really The Eugenics society that he lead for some time was almost
exclusively concerned with domestic issues, and the working class.
Fisher for instance lobbied the government to introduce child
benefits, and to extend railway lines to rural areas to reduce
inbreeding and the genetic defects in could cause in the population.
he was of course also a devout Christian and frequently published
these ideas in Church magazines, and broadcasted on religious and
social issues
chris thompson
No he isn't. He never said that- at least to my knowledge, and I think
I've read this entire thread.
> classic Argument From Authority.
No he's not. He's saying you are NOT an authority because you
consistently misrepresent the ToE.
> Conversely, he is saying, 'Darwinists
> with degrees are automatically correct.' In response I am reminding
No he's not, at least to my knowledge. You put that phrase in quotes.
Now, sometimes people do that for emphasis, and sometimes people do it
because they're asserting it's exactly what someone else said or
wrote. Which is it here? If it's a quote from him, I'd dearly like to
see a link to the post where he wrote that. If you can provide that, I
promise you I will take him to task on it.
> him and others that before the rise of Darwinism every credentialed
> naturalist rejected natural evolution, including Professor Owen and
> Professor Huxley.
And as I wrote earlier, before 1960 every credentialed geologist was a
continental-fixist. Now they know better, as do post-Darwin
biologists.
>
> In 1930, Ronald Fisher published the groundbreaking "The Genetical
> Theory Of Natural Selection." IIRC, Richard Dawkins said Fisher was
> the most important scientist since Darwin. Fisher had no degree in
> Biology and was Professor of Eugenics (= white superiority).
Fisher may well have been a white supremacist although I don't think
so (feel free to prove me incorrect). On the other hand John Langdon
Down was an out-and-out racist (a product of his time) but that does
not invalidate his description of Down's Syndrome.
>
> Shall I continue....?
I don't know. Do you have anything of substance to say, or are you
going to continue in the same pointless vein?
>
> Let me know.
Just did.
Chris
DanaTweedy
Actually, Ray, he's not. What you say about the theory of evolution is
largely wrong, because you are both uneducated, (lacking a college
degree is only part of that) and willfully blind.
> He is making a
> classic Argument From Authority.
No, he's not. He's saying that you aren't an authority on anything,
not appealing to an authority.
> Conversely, he is saying, 'Darwinists
> with degrees are automatically correct.'
Wrong again. Having a degree is an indication that one knows what he or
she is talking about, but it doesn't mean one is always correct.
> In response I am reminding
> him and others that before the rise of Darwinism every credentialed
> naturalist rejected natural evolution, including Professor Owen and
> Professor Huxley.
which is wrong. Neither Owen, or Huxley rejected "natural evolution".
Owen himself had his own ideas about evolution, which is why he
opposed Darwin. Huxley didn't think about "natural evolution" and he
is famous for his statement of "how stupid I didn't think of it before".
That evolution wasn't widely accepted was not due to it being rejected
by scientists, but that it wasn't widely considered until Darwin pointed
out the evidence. Once scientists starting looking into the matter,
they quickly agreed with Darwin.
>
> In 1930, Ronald Fisher published the groundbreaking "The Genetical
> Theory Of Natural Selection." IIRC, Richard Dawkins said Fisher was
> the most important scientist since Darwin.
Because of Fisher's statistical work with genetics.
> Fisher had no degree in
> Biology and was Professor of Eugenics (= white superiority).
While Fisher didn't have a degree in biology, he did study it, and
understood both statistics, and genetics. Eugenics may have been used
for supporting "white superiority", the same as many religious leaders
used the Bible to support "white superiority" at that time, but it
doesn't mean "white superiority".
>
> Shall I continue....?
Why? The times you brought this up before you were soundly defeated,
and you showed everyone how ignorant you were.
>
> Let me know.
If you choose to look silly, go ahead.
DJT
DanaTweedy
the problem is, Ray, that you are so totally ignorant, both in actual
knowledge, and lacking in ability to distinguish between feces and
shinola, that any evaluation you might make about how to "ascertain the
fact by message content" is worthless on it's own.
In short, you haven't the capacity to tell what's written by a learned
person, and by a slick con man.
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
[bracket added by R.M.]
Boikey's comment says the ToE is godless/pro-Atheism (yes, I agree).
But Boikey claims to be an Agnostic. We see anything but neutrailty in
his little rant and its implication.
> > He is making a
> > classic Argument From Authority.
>
> Nope. "Argument from observation". Besides that, fool, an "argument
> from authority" is a logical falacy when the "authority" is not an
> authority within his field of expertice. Citing the opinion of a
> credentialed biologist in matters of biology, such as evolution, is
> not a logical fallacy. Citing opinion a degreed electrical engineer
> as being authoritative on matters of biology, could be.
>
These comments reveal that our Darwinist does not know what an
Argument From Authority is.
> > Conversely, he is saying, 'Darwinists
> > with degrees are automatically correct.'
>
> Nope, I'm saying "they are probably more informed than you". (or me,
> for that matter).
>
Since you are a Darwinist, your opinion is entirely expected and
predetermined.
Ray
> > In response I am reminding
> > him and others that before the rise of Darwinism every credentialed
> > naturalist rejected natural evolution, including Professor Owen and
> > Professor Huxley.
>
> Is there any chance you can relate that to *modern* creationism?
>
>
>
> > In 1930, Ronald Fisher published the groundbreaking "The Genetical
> > Theory Of Natural Selection." IIRC, Richard Dawkins said Fisher was
> > the most important scientist since Darwin. Fisher had no degree in
> > Biology and was Professor of Eugenics (= white superiority).
>
> I smell an attempt at "guilt by association", and "eugenics" does not
> automatically = white superiority.
>
>
>
> > Shall I continue....?
>
> Only if you feel a compelling need to make yourself look like an ass.
>
>
>
> > Let me know.
>
> That's up to you. If you want to make yourself look like a brainless
> yokle, that's your business.
>
T Pagano
I agree that we have no obligation to uncover someone's credentials
and that credentials, in and of themselves, do not carry the day.
Nonetheless the fact the Dworetsky did have credentials relevent to
the issue at hand softened my harsh opinion of Thompson.
Do not fear however that I am getting soft in my old age. Dworetsky
took a pounding and I think he's finally down for the count.
Regards,
T Pagano
RAM
Your primary trouble is you cannot count. Induction is not one of
your skill sets. But plagiarizing is.
Pwnd! Krthmp! Pagano's world spins out of control! Another TKO!
"Sarge"
"Yes Captain."
"Call the medics." "Tell them to give him some 'truth serum'."
"But Captain, that will kill him!"
Pwnd! Krthmp! Pagano's world spins out of control! Yet another TKO!
Rolf
Soft, you? More like a porcupine.
Your perpetual 'Regards' doesn't become you, you are not that kind of
person, I believe.
Why are you so bent on taking people down? Would it be too much asking for
attention to the facts of whatever issue is being debated? Instead of
non-facts like the aether, for example.
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Mike Dworetsky
> T Pagano wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2011 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
snip snip
>>
>> Do not fear however that I am getting soft in my old age. Dworetsky
>> took a pounding and I think he's finally down for the count.
>>
>
> Soft, you? More like a porcupine.
>
> Your perpetual 'Regards' doesn't become you, you are not that kind of
> person, I believe.
>
> Why are you so bent on taking people down? Would it be too much
> asking for attention to the facts of whatever issue is being debated?
> Instead of non-facts like the aether, for example.
You are on a hiding to nothing. Asking Pagano for facts, indeed! The very
idea!
T Pagano
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 1:14 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On May 20, 2:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 19, 9:12 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 19, 2:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 19, 11:10 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On May 19, 12:25 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On May 18, 6:43 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
snip
Bravo Ray. You always seem to sum up matters with crystal clarity.
And you seem to have left "Boikey" speechless. They argue from
ignorance and you have a great grasp on the history of science.
Regards,
T Pagano
Boikat
So, you're reduced to "spell checker"?
>
> Boikey's comment says the ToE is godless/pro-Atheism (yes, I agree).
Nope. Agnostic.
> But Boikey claims to be an Agnostic. We see anything but neutrailty in
> his little rant and its implication.
When you have any actual evidence to dispell that, please feel free to
present it. Your *opinion* doens't count.
>
> > > He is making a
> > > classic Argument From Authority.
>
> > Nope. "Argument from observation". Besides that, fool, an "argument
> > from authority" is a logical falacy when the "authority" is not an
> > authority within his field of expertice. Citing the opinion of a
> > credentialed biologist in matters of biology, such as evolution, is
> > not a logical fallacy. Citing opinion a degreed electrical engineer
> > as being authoritative on matters of biology, could be.
>
> These comments reveal that our Darwinist does not know what an
> Argument From Authority is.
Actually, it's the oter way around you ignorant fool, given the
context presented.
>
> > > Conversely, he is saying, 'Darwinists
> > > with degrees are automatically correct.'
>
> > Nope, I'm saying "they are probably more informed than you". (or me,
> > for that matter).
>
> Since you are a Darwinist, your opinion is entirely expected and
> predetermined.
As opposed to your insane rants?
Boikat
Boikat
Hardly. You, on the other hand, seem to have become speacless when
asked to explain why Tiktaalik does not represent a transitional form,
expecially after pointing out that pseudo-scientific "criteria" of
ignorant creationists would not be insufficient.
Boikat
Rolf
Just the difference between current stannd of science wrt the history of
science. The hsitory of science is in an by itself irrelevant, what counts
is what science says about it's subject - and that is not history! it it s
nature, the world, the universe and everything in and of it!
The history of history may be an interesting history, but liek WW2, it is
not the history of Ww2 that matters, it is the fact that Nazi Germany and
Japan were beaten and probaly won't embark on anothe insane adventure and
create even more history.
Ray is incurable, he fails to realize that 150 years old literature is
irrelevant wrt science today. You seem to be making the same mistake.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Ray Martinez
That "old literature" (your phrase) contains the proof that the ToE
presented here at Talk.Origins is not the one Darwin presented. And it
was Darwin's ToE that science accepted and still accepts.
Ray
>
>
>
>
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
Predetermined? Do you mean that you think God predetermined us to be
"Darwinists" and an "atheists"?
>
>
>
> > > In response I am reminding
> > > him and others that before the rise of Darwinism every credentialed
> > > naturalist rejected natural evolution, including Professor Owen and
> > > Professor Huxley.
>
> > Is there any chance you can relate that to *modern* creationism?
>
> > > In 1930, Ronald Fisher published the groundbreaking "The Genetical
> > > Theory Of Natural Selection." IIRC, Richard Dawkins said Fisher was
> > > the most important scientist since Darwin. Fisher had no degree in
> > > Biology and was Professor of Eugenics (= white superiority).
>
> > I smell an attempt at "guilt by association", and "eugenics" does not
> > automatically = white superiority.
>
> > > Shall I continue....?
>
> > Only if you feel a compelling need to make yourself look like an ass.
>
> > > Let me know.
>
> > That's up to you. If you want to make yourself look like a brainless
> > yokle, that's your business.
>
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ernest Major
<40cd69c5-cb8a-4682...@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
The current scientific consensus disagrees with Darwin on several
points, among which are
1) swim bladders are modified lungs, not vice versa.
2) mass extinctions are not artefacts of an imperfect fossil record
The current scientific consensus includes things not known to Darwin,
among which are
1) a working theory of variation (population genetics)
2) genetic drift
3) meiotic drive
4) polyploid speciation
5) continental drift
If you think that Darwin's work is science's last word on the subject,
that's another reason why your magnum opus will be a disaster.
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>
> > Ray is incurable, he fails to realize that 150 years old literature is
> > irrelevant wrt science today. You seem to be making the same mistake.
>
> That "old literature" (your phrase) contains the proof that the ToE
> presented here at Talk.Origins is not the one Darwin presented.
Ray, the theory as Darwin presented it has been superseded by 150
years of new research. Darwin was correct about natural selection,
but was unaware of things like genetics and drift. The modern theory
of evolution is what's "presented here" at T.O. Your problem is that
you don't understand either Darwin's original ideas, or the modern
synthesis that stands today.
> And it
> was Darwin's ToE that science accepted and still accepts.
Science accepted the theory, and built on it. Darwin's theory has
gone far beyond what Darwin himself knew. Ray has no idea of what
science accepts, and no idea of how science works. What's is
puzzling is why it would matter to Ray. Evolution is science,
whether Darwin, Wallace, Huxley, or even Lamarck were to be credited
with it's discovery. Creationism remains a religious belief, and is
not a serious contender for a scientific explanation.
DJT
Ernest Major
<ef8558a2-6574-429f...@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Frank J <fc...@verizon.net> writes
>On May 21, 2:00 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 20, 1:14 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 20, 2:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 19, 9:12 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 19, 2:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On May 19, 11:10 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On May 19, 12:25 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On May 18, 6:43 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > An Appology to Chris Thompson over the facts surrounding his
>> > > > > > > > initiation of the Heliocentric/GeoCentric Battle.
>>
>> > > > > > > > At the time I accused Thompson of throwing Dworetsky
>> > > > > > > >under the bus and
>> > > > > > > > then running away. I discovered my error today while
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>>
>> > > > > > > > I had wrongly assumed that Dworetsky was just another
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Dworetsky is Dr Dworetsky, Lecturer in Astronomy. That
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>>
>> > > > > > > > T Pagano
>>
>> > > > > > > In other messages, in other topics (in the past), I have
>> > > > > > > to point out that unless the author included his educational
>> > > > > > > credentials in post signature then we would not be able
but ascribing causal power to Satan, and perhaps to other entities. It's
not immediately clear whether he rejects free will, or considers the
human mind to be supernatural.
--
alias Ernest Major
Randy C
Ray thinks that science, like religion, has gospels. In other words
he believes that when science accepts a hypothesis, they accept if
unchallengingly and unchangeably; they turn it into a "gospel" as in
the phrase "that's the gospel truth".
But ALL hypotheses in science, unlike religion, are continuously
tested and modified where appropriate.
So this is just another example where Ray is totally clueless.
Rolf
The 150 years of scientifc research since Darwin means nothing?
Like the 350 years since Newton can be ignored?
For the record: Darwin knew nothing about genetics. All he had was
observating the world and speculation about the past. A lot was already
known about the past; the geological column had already been 'established',
fossils were well known, and a mechanism for genetic change had been taken
advantage of by agriculture and animal breeding for thousands of years; his
study of the Galapagos finches was important for working out the #1 basic of
the theory of evolution: Natural selection.
In case you have overlooked it: Natural Selection has not been abandoned as
a cornerstone of the ToE. What has happened since Darwin is that we have
found the mechanism that makes selection and thereby evolution, possible.
Taht we have found an intricate complexity in the science of genetics, as we
find demonstrated by the relatively new science of evo-devo doesn't mean
Darwins' contribution.
Einsteins theory of relativity is not the theory that Newton presented
either. While Newton's theory still is a very useful scientific tool it is
not the last word on celestial mechanics ant motions of the planets.
Like Newton was an important step in physics; Darwin was in life sciences.
Darwin laid a foundation, 'we' have built a castle upon that. If you want to
study that castle, you are welcome. While you are there you may not see the
foundation but you may observe that the ground doens't shake under your
feet.
We have other important milestones in science; like Maxwell, Faraday,
Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo, and countless others. Wake up and face the world
of the 21st century: Science is mankind's most exciting adventure since the
flint tools. We don't know what it will lead to; maybe it will end with
Armageddon, and there won't be a saviour to bail us out. We are alone,
alone. We have to find the solution all by ourselves. Will we?