HOW CAN MANY PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE IN GOD?!!!
jerry and judy
modera...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> HOW CAN MANY PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE IN GOD ? !!!
>
>
> I wonder when human beings will realize the tremendous backwardness of
>still believing in gods and the supernatural, I sometimes think that if an
>advanced group of aliens comes to Earth and sees many people still behaving
>as ignorant savages, they will conclude we are still in the stone age (or
>worse).
>
> It seems incredible that with the great advance in science and in our
>understanding of the universe, some people still think there is room for
>irrational beliefs that in the past have led to hatred, murder, persecution
>and some of the most horrible crimes in the history of mankind.
>
> I wish my fellow human beings will soon realize this and force those
>smart-alecks who make a living out of people's ignorance (and what a
>living, just look at the Pope in his palace...) to look for decent ways to
>earn their daily bread in other ways than exploiting people's fears and
>ignorance.
>
> An incredibly bright future of exploring the universe and discovering things
>we don't even dream about awaits us as soon as we get rid of the last
>shreds of prehistoric superstition, then perhaps we will be able to join
>other truly civilized beings with ADULT ideas (no Santa-Claus-in-the-sky)
>in the galaxy in such a fascinating quest.
>
> Every time I pass near a church on Sundays, the voices that come from such
>buildings seem to want to drag us back into the caves. Pity (for them...).
>
>
> Juan Manuel
>
If you look into the evolutionary basis of religion and 'god' concepts you
might become even less hopeful...
It would be interesting to find out when, in our line of
survival, territoriality and ritualism became so enmeshed with the 'need'
for being 'right'? At some point, our rapidly enlarging neopallium
allowed our ancestors the possibility of being right about more than mere
cause and effect, but aspects of our older, more reptilian, modes of
behavior and social organization have remained very much with us. :(
Simple answers, 'pure' black and white worldviews, and top ape/alpha male
carry-overs are very much in evidence in orthodox religions today. These
shortcuts in mental decision-making were needed for survival reasons, so
religious schemes and various other prejudices arose to fill the need. It
matters not at all, whether they're accurate, correct or just, survival
forces don't care!
Picture a congregation of apes listening to an 'accepted' higher status
ape ranting about how simple life would be, if they only would get with
the program! By wildly waving his arms, pounding on holy books and
podiums, and knashing his teeth he holds their attention, all the while
hoping some of his convictions and persuasions will seep in (for the
longterm good of the troupe, of course). And the top ape has the power of
(spiritual) life and death or banishment over everyone, but no matter what
bad things he does, it's always accepted as being for the good of the
troupe. Sound familiar? Religious modes come right out of the last 10 or 20
million years of higher primate survival behavior.
How ironic that the very group that most tries to distance itself from its
ape origins continues to so humorously demonstrate the uninterrupted line
from the ancient silverback's world to Jerry Falwell's.
Jerry (no relation)
BobG
>
>> HOW CAN MANY PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE IN GOD ? !!!
>>
>>
It is not the traditional type of brainwashing where intensive
measures are used for a very short period of time. It is a less
conventional type of brainwashing where more moderate measures are
used over a long period of time (12 or 13 years). In either case that
I have described, your brain gets twisted and warped.
There is also a hybrid type of brainwashing associated with religion.
This is when very intensive methods are used for long periods of time.
An example of this is Orthodox Judaism where from sunrise to sunset
people are trained to think, speak, eat, etc. religion. After several
years of this, your brain would turn to mush.
BobG
Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.
Galen Surlak Ramsey
>BobG
>Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of
evolution.
Evolution is a theory-any biology teacher will attest to this. Currently,
there are about ten forms of this theory as well, so could you please
specify-before ranting and raving-which theory we are in discussion of? Or
are you just making a broad statement with no detailed basis?
Semper Fidelis,
Galen
BobG
<gsu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Evolution is a theory-any biology teacher will attest to this. Currently,
>there are about ten forms of this theory as well, so could you please
>specify-before ranting and raving-which theory we are in discussion of? Or
>are you just making a broad statement with no detailed basis?
>
>Semper Fidelis,
>Galen
>
What I am saying is that evolution occurred. That is indisputable.
Like you said, there are about ten theories that explains that which
occurred.
Dave Haas
says...
>>
>>BobG
>>Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of
>evolution.
>
>there are about ten forms of this theory as well, so could you please
>specify-before ranting and raving-which theory we are in discussion of? Or
>are you just making a broad statement with no detailed basis?
>
>
the dark. This must be a real breakthrough! Please enlighten us all.
D. Haas
Galen Surlak Ramsey
>the dark. This must be a real breakthrough! Please enlighten us all.
>
>D. Haas
Yes there are. All generall state the same thing, but each vary
considerably on such things as punct. equilibrium, origins (ocean vs. small
pools) formation of amino acids, etc. I'm not about write all the details
but it shouldnt take you but fifteen, thirty mins top to find out in any
decent library-college libraries especially.
Elroy Willis
>gsu...@mindspring.com says...
>>>BobG
>>>Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of
>>evolution.
>>Evolution is a theory-any biology teacher will attest to this. Currently,
>>there are about ten forms of this theory as well, so could you please
>>specify-before ranting and raving-which theory we are in discussion of? Or
>>are you just making a broad statement with no detailed basis?
>There are ten forms of evolutionary theory! Good God man don't keep us in
>the dark. This must be a real breakthrough! Please enlighten us all.
Even if there were ten, it's heaps less than the 20,000+ denominations and
variations of the so-called true word of god, each of which think they are
believing the truth.
--
Elroy
BAAWA Undercover News Division
http://www.cyberramp.net/~elo/news
Mark Gradwell
Galen Surlak Ramsey wrote:
>
> >There are ten forms of evolutionary theory! Good God man don't keep us in
> >the dark. This must be a real breakthrough! Please enlighten us all.
> >
> >D. Haas
>
> Yes there are. All generall state the same thing, but each vary
> considerably on such things as punct. equilibrium, origins (ocean vs. small
> pools) formation of amino acids, etc. I'm not about write all the details
> but it shouldnt take you but fifteen, thirty mins top to find out in any
> decent library-college libraries especially.
Erm, well go off and do it then;).
--
Yours,
Mark Gradwell.
http://www.marks.diving.photos.mcmail.com
mailto: mark...@cwcom.net
Christopher A. Lee
>>
>>BobG
>>Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of
>evolution.
>
>Evolution is a theory-any biology teacher will attest to this. Currently,
And it is also a fact. Any biology teacher will attest to this.
You see, it is the label given to observed phemonena. That's
how science works, as any science teacher will attest. Like
most scientific fields, the definition varies according to the
area being studied - just as eg the definition of electricity
does. So palaeontologists use the original one given long
before Darwin to the observation that fossilised species get
more different from modern specimens and eventually converge
as they get older. And modern day biologists define it as the
variation in allele frequencies in a population. Neither set
of observations will go away.
The theory of evolution is the explanation for the facts of
evolution. It represents our understanding of the mechanisms
which cause the observed changes that were given the label
"evolution". And they are as pretty well confirmed as any other
scientific explanation.
You see, science is not about belief, but about utility. No-one
needs to "believe" the explanation. If it works consistently,
predictably and predictively then it is accepted until a better
one comes along - which has to explain *more* than the previous
one, and also why if the previous one was so wrong, then its
explanations worked so well. As any science teacher will attest.
That evolution is a fact is beyond question. There was debate
about it over 100 years ago. But there is no debate now except
in the minds of certain religious fundamentalists who insist
that when certain scriptures override reality when they are
in conflict.
The juggernaut of science has gone on since then to investigate
the causes and mechanisms of evolution: how it works, why it works
etc. And come up with whole new sciences and technologies which
simply would not exist in the form they do if our understanding
of the mechanisms was wrong.
Just as you confirm our understanding of atomic theory every time
you turn the light on because atomic power stations work the way do,
every time you use the products of modern agriculture and medicine
you confirm our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution by
using products and applications which simply wouldn't be there
if our understanding were wrong.
It wouldn't be so bad if creationists were to acknowledge evolution
and offer alternatives with evidence that they happened as well.
But instead they insist that what has been found through a process
of objective investigation using the scientific method, simply
doesn't happen.
When it obviously has, whether or not there is a God, a Zeus, an
Odin etc. *I*F* there was a creator god then it did it that way.
Because that's what happened.
>there are about ten forms of this theory as well, so could you please
>specify-before ranting and raving-which theory we are in discussion of? Or
>are you just making a broad statement with no detailed basis?
Maybe you should please specify before ranting and raving, and
understand just what theory means in science. And also that when
you raise the subject outside the confines of your religion you
have to know enough about what you are arguing against, to be
able to do that, instead of attacking a strawman which only makes
you look like a flat-earther trying to persuade NASA satellite
engineers that the earth really is flat.
In other words, stop making broad statements with no detailed
basis.
>Semper Fidelis,
>Galen
Galen Surlak Ramsey
>understand just what theory means in science. And also that when
>you raise the subject outside the confines of your religion you
>have to know enough about what you are arguing against, to be
>able to do that, instead of attacking a strawman which only makes
>you look like a flat-earther trying to persuade NASA satellite
>engineers that the earth really is flat.
>
>In other words, stop making broad statements with no detailed
>basis.
I am well aware of definitions thank you. And I have yet to try and
pursuade anyone in this topic, nor will I. I was just curious as to which he
was in refrence to. I'm not quite sure how you took that as to be an
attack, perhaps you need to lower the defenses abit, yes?
Semper Fidelis,
Galen
Andrew Cox
Maybe you should heed your own advice. I hardly think that someone's sig
could be considered ranting and raving. Look at the quote again:
"Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of
evolution."
I think that if you consider that ranting and raving, then you might be
the one that is high on the defenses.
Andrew
Dave Haas
says...
>>There are ten forms of evolutionary theory! Good God man don't keep us in
>>the dark. This must be a real breakthrough! Please enlighten us all.
>>
>>D. Haas
>
>Yes there are. All generall state the same thing, but each vary
>considerably on such things as punct. equilibrium, origins (ocean vs. small
>pools) formation of amino acids, etc. I'm not about write all the details
>but it shouldnt take you but fifteen, thirty mins top to find out in any
>decent library-college libraries especially.
>
Why 10, why not 8 or 12 or 50. I don't know what you are talking about.
You are probably talking about the emphasis on mechanisms and details on
how evolution proceeds. The theory is a theory and basic to the
understanding of how gene pools change through time due to natural
selection. As far as pools and amino acids this would be abiogenesis which
is NOT evolution.
D. Haas
Galen Surlak Ramsey
>"Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of
>evolution."
>
>I think that if you consider that ranting and raving, then you might be
>the one that is high on the defenses.
>
>Andrew
any case, its a moot point by now.
Semper Fidelis,
Galen
Julie Kale
questions:
a) what happens after death.
b) where we came from.
c) what our purpose on the earth is.
d) how we should conduct ourselves while here on this earth.
Of course, these answers aren't based on objective reality, but for those
willing to believe, they will accept anything, it seems.
--
~Julie Kale~
"Most illogical." - Spock.
"Meow." - Sparkle, my cat.
jerry and judy wrote in message ...
>In article <7ckigg$4u6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>modera...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> HOW CAN MANY PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE IN GOD ? !!!
>>
>>
BobG
Haas) wrote:
> Why 10, why not 8 or 12 or 50. I don't know what you are talking about.
>You are probably talking about the emphasis on mechanisms and details on
>how evolution proceeds. The theory is a theory and basic to the
>understanding of how gene pools change through time due to natural
>selection. As far as pools and amino acids this would be abiogenesis which
>is NOT evolution.
>
>D. Haas
Haas,
I'm no expert but I understand the basic idea that there can be more
than one theory to explain evolution. Let me give three different and
somewhat simplified theories of evolution:
1. Evolution is a very gradual process that is continually occurring.
2. Evolution under normal conditions does not occur. However, during
dramatic climatic upheavals, evolution occurs in giant spurts.
3. Evolution is a very gradual process that is always occurring and
during dramatic climatic upheavals, evolution occurs in giant leaps.
So we have three different theories; gradualism, giant leaps and a
combination of both.
BobS
BobG
wrote:
>I think that people believe in religion because it answers the following
>questions:
>
>a) what happens after death.
>b) where we came from.
>c) what our purpose on the earth is.
>d) how we should conduct ourselves while here on this earth.
>
>Of course, these answers aren't based on objective reality, but for those
>willing to believe, they will accept anything, it seems.
Julie,
My nonreligious answers to these questions are
a) After death, there is nothing but a long, eternal sleep.
b) We evolved from some green(or perhaps some other color) slime in
the ocean.
c) We don't have a purpose on this earth except to exist.
d) Decently.
In general, people do not like my first answer to nothingness after
death. That is one of the main reasons why religion has developed.
Religion is basically a denial of death because if there is life after
death, than there really wasn't death.
BobG
modera...@my-dejanews.com
*********************************************************************************************
That was brilliant. I agree 100%. I'm a very imaginative guy so while I was
reading your message I pictured in my mind Jerry Falwell gesticulating and
shrieking at his congregation and I was rolling all over the floor with
laughter. My wife just came in and said: "Darling, what's the matter, did you
take more Prozac than usual?".
*********************************************************************************************
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
maff91
<gsu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>BobG
>>Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of
>evolution.
>
>Evolution is a theory-any biology teacher will attest to this. Currently,
>there are about ten forms of this theory as well, so could you please
"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers Paperback 2nd
edition (March 1995) Hackett Pub Co; ISBN: 087220149X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087220149X/
>specify-before ranting and raving-which theory we are in discussion of? Or
>are you just making a broad statement with no detailed basis?
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological
evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from
shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic,
fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also
considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms
that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a
theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
>
>Semper Fidelis,
>Galen
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
maff91
<gsu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>There are ten forms of evolutionary theory! Good God man don't keep us in
>>the dark. This must be a real breakthrough! Please enlighten us all.
>>
>>D. Haas
>
>Yes there are. All generall state the same thing, but each vary
>considerably on such things as punct. equilibrium, origins (ocean vs. small
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
Origin of life is called abiogenesis. Origin of species is covered by
http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=424558267
biological evolution.
>pools) formation of amino acids, etc. I'm not about write all the details
>but it shouldnt take you but fifteen, thirty mins top to find out in any
>decent library-college libraries especially.
Have you told Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and oil exploration
companies of your findings?
<http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
<http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
maff91
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 20:13:04 -0500, dh...@uncfsu.campuscwix.net (Dave
>Haas) wrote:
>
>
>> Why 10, why not 8 or 12 or 50. I don't know what you are talking about.
>>You are probably talking about the emphasis on mechanisms and details on
>>how evolution proceeds. The theory is a theory and basic to the
>>understanding of how gene pools change through time due to natural
>>selection. As far as pools and amino acids this would be abiogenesis which
>>is NOT evolution.
>>
>>D. Haas
>Haas,
>
>I'm no expert but I understand the basic idea that there can be more
>than one theory to explain evolution. Let me give three different and
>somewhat simplified theories of evolution:
>1. Evolution is a very gradual process that is continually occurring.
>2. Evolution under normal conditions does not occur. However, during
You're confusing evolution and speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>dramatic climatic upheavals, evolution occurs in giant spurts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_222000/222096.stm
>3. Evolution is a very gradual process that is always occurring and
>during dramatic climatic upheavals, evolution occurs in giant leaps.
There' re many other factors. Random mutation, natural selection,
genetic drift, geographic isolation, biogeography, ecology, founder
effect, extinctions, etc all contributed to the historical evolution.
>
>So we have three different theories; gradualism, giant leaps and a
>combination of both.
http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456182940
http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456219229
>
>BobS
>Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Dave Haas
says...
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 20:13:04 -0500, dh...@uncfsu.campuscwix.net (Dave
>Haas) wrote:
>
>
>> Why 10, why not 8 or 12 or 50. I don't know what you are talking about.
>>You are probably talking about the emphasis on mechanisms and details on
>>how evolution proceeds. The theory is a theory and basic to the
>>understanding of how gene pools change through time due to natural
>>selection. As far as pools and amino acids this would be abiogenesis which
>>is NOT evolution.
>>
>>D. Haas
>Haas,
>
>I'm no expert but I understand the basic idea that there can be more
>than one theory to explain evolution. Let me give three different and
>somewhat simplified theories of evolution:
>1. Evolution is a very gradual process that is continually occurring.
>2. Evolution under normal conditions does not occur. However, during
>during dramatic climatic upheavals, evolution occurs in giant leaps.
>
>combination of both.
Yes, I guess it depends on how you define theory. My view is that the
theory of evolution is the change in gene frequencies over time. So I
don't consider the three "theories" above separate but rather simply
details on how those gene pools change. The basic theory states that
natural and other forms of selection causes the changes and the environment
does the selecting.
Now the question is, exactly how fast do those changes occur. Evolution is
occurring in all three situations. In the case of artificial selection
humans have created species and subspecies in a few thousand years or less.
This is also evolution and would fall under the same theory. Viruses
change and bacteria are changed in even shorter periods. Humans take a
little longer. Each taxonomic group has its own history depending on its
gene pool. Some groups are quite stable and don't change much. (sharks,
ferns, crabs, dragon flies etc.) Other groups are at the front lines and
change relatively fast. (Composites, flies, mammals)
D. Haas
BobG
wrote:
>>I'm no expert but I understand the basic idea that there can be more
>>than one theory to explain evolution. Let me give three different and
>>somewhat simplified theories of evolution:
>>1. Evolution is a very gradual process that is continually occurring.
>>2. Evolution under normal conditions does not occur. However, during
>
>You're confusing evolution and speciation.
I see speciation simply as an extension of evolution.
BobG
maff91
>On 21 Mar 1999 06:40:09 -0600, maf...@nospam.my-dejanews.com (maff91)
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I'm no expert but I understand the basic idea that there can be more
>>>than one theory to explain evolution. Let me give three different and
>>>somewhat simplified theories of evolution:
>>>1. Evolution is a very gradual process that is continually occurring.
>>>2. Evolution under normal conditions does not occur. However, during
>>
>>You're confusing evolution and speciation.
>I see speciation simply as an extension of evolution.
Yep. Evolution happens regardless of speciation.
Libertarius
"Galen Surlak Ramsey" <gsu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>BobG
>>Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of
>evolution.
>
>Evolution is a theory-any biology teacher will attest to this.
===>That may be why our children score below the rest of the world
in science, etc., because teachers study to be teachers, but don't
learn science.
Currently,
>there are about ten forms of this theory as well, so could you please
>specify-before ranting and raving-which theory we are in discussion of? Or
>are you just making a broad statement with no detailed basis?
===>There are alternate theories of Gravity as well, (Newton, Einstein),
but GRAVITATION exists and will always operate on bodies, just as
EVOLUTION exists and will always operate on the genetic material of
living organisms.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
Libertarius
momof...@aol.com (MomOfPlato) wrote:
>Without order there is chaos, chaos is what occurs without order. Order is
not
>manifested out of chaos on its own.
>
>Who do you think created the order out of chaos from the start? Random
events
>don't organize themselves as life is organized.
>
>you forget about the law of entropy.
>
>You've merely proven man is still both ignorant and arrogant.
===>It is YOU who are proving IGNORANCE AND ARROGANCE. You deny
objective reality and depend on poets and story-tellers for
scientific information.
>
>Science is merely the exploration of the rules of organization God uses to
run
>His creation. He kept us ignorant of science for many millenia, until it
was
>due time to allow some knowledge to trickle down to us, and look how man
>responds. Perhaps this attitude is why He waited so long.
===>Do you HONESTLY believe in a "God" who deliberately "kept us
ignorant of science for many millennia"?
Mistress Abby
> >BobG
> >Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of
> evolution.
> there are about ten forms of this theory as well, so could you please
> specify-before ranting and raving-which theory we are in discussion of? Or
> are you just making a broad statement with no detailed basis?
> Galen
Ah no, evolution is a fact. It is not quite as simple as you are pressuming
and the problem arises from the use of the words.
Evolution is an observed fact, we can flood a vat of bacteria with slight acid
and watch them evolve into a species of similar type bacteria whom are not
killed by an acidic environment. This is fact, and it is called Evolution.
The THEORY is HOW this happens, of which there are approaching 12 theories.
Some of them attempt to explain genesis of life, some of them stick to
theories of DNA mutation-generalisation-specialisation. These are the
Theories of Evolution, or more accurately the Theories of Evolution
Methodology.
Let's educate.
Mistress Abby
Terry Riopka
>
>It is not the traditional type of brainwashing where intensive
>measures are used for a very short period of time. It is a less
>conventional type of brainwashing where more moderate measures are
>used over a long period of time (12 or 13 years). In either case that
>I have described, your brain gets twisted and warped.
>
I disagree. I think it is entirely possible to come to a rational
acceptance of god. It simply depends on your "leap of faith". I would
submit that atheists make a "leap of faith" when they come to the
conclusion that there is no purpose to the existence of the universe.
Members of the entire spectrum of religions make leaps of faith at
different points in their interpretation of reality. There is always
*some* point you have to cross where you must simply decide, with no
proof one way or another, which is the correct interpretation. Once
you make that leap, the ramifications of that leap guide the rest of
your perspective.
Of course, there are many *many* people who have never questioned their
beliefs, in which case your brainwashing statement is probably
appropriate. Nevertheless, a sweeping statement that negates the
possibility of believing in God is IMHO ridiculous.
just my one and a half pennies worth...
terry
--
*.............*.............*.............*..............*..............*
So what IS this quintessence of dust?
.......*.............*.............*..............*..............*.......
Terry P. Riopka The George Washington University
Dave
>ignorant of science for many millennia"?
And what has science done for humanity? I would say that our medical
technology is probably much better, but where else has science provided us
with something we needed? We have a disintegrating ozone. Polluted waters
and air. People stare on end at a box with pictures. Cancer possibly
caused by electricity(still unproven). Oil tankers crashed on shores. If
there's one thing that science has proven, it's that scientists rarely, if
ever, examine things fully before implementing. Man has this odd desire to
be in total control at all times and will jump at the first chance. It's
like having an argument and the minute that he finds something that seems to
make his opinion right, he declares victory and moves on.
Evolution is not fact, it is simply a theory. Why is it a theory? Because
nobody has ever witnessed it. Period. There is no absolute proof. There
is some evidence for it that would lead some to believe it. I have my
doubts, though based on a lot of things such as the bio-chemical processes
of the human body--but I'm not interested in debating evolution. If you
want to put your vote in for evolution, that's your decision and one that
you are free to make and one I can respect. I only say that you shouldn't
close yourself off to other ideas, especially if you want to argue for
something, you should have extensive knowledge of both sides of the
argument. If you want to argue against God, I challenge you to do some
research into Him. Check out the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.
If you have extensive knowledge of both sides and can still say that you are
in favor of evolution, more power to you.
Dave
Dave Oldridge
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>===>Do you HONESTLY believe in a "God" who deliberately "kept us
>>ignorant of science for many millennia"?
>
>And what has science done for humanity? I would say that our medical
>technology is probably much better, but where else has science provided us
>with something we needed? We have a disintegrating ozone. Polluted waters
It feeds billions. Without it, we'd be a few million at best.
>and air. People stare on end at a box with pictures. Cancer possibly
>caused by electricity(still unproven). Oil tankers crashed on shores. If
>there's one thing that science has proven, it's that scientists rarely, if
>ever, examine things fully before implementing. Man has this odd desire to
>be in total control at all times and will jump at the first chance. It's
>like having an argument and the minute that he finds something that seems to
>make his opinion right, he declares victory and moves on.
>
>Evolution is not fact, it is simply a theory. Why is it a theory? Because
>nobody has ever witnessed it. Period. There is no absolute proof. There
Is this the new "Liars for Jesus" mantra or something? I see it all
over these newsgroups. Evolution at the level of speciation is
observed frequently in nature and can be produced in the lab. The
"theory of evolution" is the body of theories about how evolution, as
observed, accounts for all the diversity of life on the planet.
[snip]
>argument. If you want to argue against God, I challenge you to do some
>research into Him. Check out the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.
>If you have extensive knowledge of both sides and can still say that you are
>in favor of evolution, more power to you.
I don't ever argue against God, but I sure find it fatiguing
straightening out His (mostly self-appointed) representatives.
Dave Oldridge
Sysop, Coastal Watch BBS
telnet://bbs.coastalw.com
ICQ 1800667
dold...@ocean.coastalw.com
Andy
IMO one of the most succinct and accurate posts made in
my time in this NG.
Andy
MindSpring User
Urrrrgggghhh
<chomp chomp chomp>
Orrhgaggh?
<spits bone on floor>
<tries to improve on design of club>
Semper Fidelis,
Galen
>Ranting and raving? Your understanding of the English language leads
>me to think you have, at most, a double digit I.Q.
>BobG
OrlandoFlorida
I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
world is 10 million years old. But I would ask you this:
How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
with certainty if they are measured against something we
already know to be 10 million years old? Without that
certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
as a fact.
News wrote in message <7d9iia$5lf$1...@news1.cableinet.co.uk>...
>Bob,
>will you please explain your theories(?) Forgive me, but the very fact that
>you have said there are about 10 theories would suggest that they all have
>faults. God is the rock on which every Christian builds there life I
>believe in Him because He is alive today and I, along with millions of
>others around the globe not only know of Him but know Him.
>
>
>BobG <rgue...@monmouth.com> wrote in message
>news:37094430...@news.monmouth.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:20:07 -0500, "Galen Surlak Ramsey"
>> <gsu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>BobG
>> >>Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of
>> >evolution.
>> >
>> >Evolution is a theory-any biology teacher will attest to this.
>Currently,
>> >there are about ten forms of this theory as well, so could you please
>> >specify-before ranting and raving-which theory we are in discussion of?
>Or
>> >are you just making a broad statement with no detailed basis?
>> >
>> >Semper Fidelis,
>> >Galen
>> Ranting and raving? Your understanding of the English language leads
>> me to think you have, at most, a double digit I.Q.
>> BobG
>>
BobG
News
will you please explain your theories(?) Forgive me, but the very fact that
you have said there are about 10 theories would suggest that they all have
faults. God is the rock on which every Christian builds there life I
believe in Him because He is alive today and I, along with millions of
others around the globe not only know of Him but know Him.
BobG <rgue...@monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:37094430...@news.monmouth.com...
BobG
wrote:
>In article <36feec74...@news.monmouth.com>,
>BobG <rgue...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>>People believe in god because religion is a form of brainwashing.
>>
>I disagree. I think it is entirely possible to come to a rational
>acceptance of god. It simply depends on your "leap of faith". I would
>submit that atheists make a "leap of faith" when they come to the
>conclusion that there is no purpose to the existence of the universe.
>Members of the entire spectrum of religions make leaps of faith at
>different points in their interpretation of reality. There is always
>*some* point you have to cross where you must simply decide, with no
>proof one way or another, which is the correct interpretation. Once
>you make that leap, the ramifications of that leap guide the rest of
>your perspective.
>Of course, there are many *many* people who have never questioned their
>beliefs, in which case your brainwashing statement is probably
>appropriate. Nevertheless, a sweeping statement that negates the
>possibility of believing in God is IMHO ridiculous.
>
>just my one and a half pennies worth...
>terry
You mentioned the word "proof".
Logical thinking requires the proof of the affirmative and not the
negative. You state a hypothesis and subject it to a critical
analysis. Based upon that analysis, you either accept or reject the
hypothesis.
Hypothesis: god exists.
Proof: Zilch
Therefore, the hypothesis that god exists is rejected.
It makes no sense to make the hypothesis that god does not exist and
ask someone to prove it. With that line of logic, one could make all
sorts of ridiculous hypotheses and ask someone to prove it. I could
say that there is a sun god and a moon god. You say no! I say prove
that there is no sun god and moon god!
So the burden of proof is on the theists and so far they have failed
miserably.
mar...@rocketmail.com
rio...@seas.gwu.edu (Terry Riopka) wrote:
> In article <36feec74...@news.monmouth.com>,
> BobG <rgue...@monmouth.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >measures are used for a very short period of time. It is a less
> >conventional type of brainwashing where more moderate measures are
> >used over a long period of time (12 or 13 years). In either case that
> >I have described, your brain gets twisted and warped.
> >
>
> acceptance of god. It simply depends on your "leap of faith". I would
This says it all. You talk about coming to a rational acceptance of something
and finish by saying it requires a leap of faith.
You choose. Are we talking rationality here, or are we talking fairy stories?
> submit that atheists make a "leap of faith" when they come to the
> conclusion that there is no purpose to the existence of the universe.
Lacking any evidence for the existence of the Easter Bunny, Yahweh, Tooth
Fairy etc etc athiests draw the logical conclusion. This is completely the
reverse of what you have written, although it's obviously comforting for
theists to maintain that everyone, atheists included, is equally irrational
in their "beliefs."
> Members of the entire spectrum of religions make leaps of faith at
> different points in their interpretation of reality. There is always
> *some* point you have to cross where you must simply decide, with no
> proof one way or another, which is the correct interpretation.
Er, no there isn't. You can base your world view on what is rational, logical
and demonstrable. You don't "have to" make a "leap of faith" to choose to
start believing in the existance of one or more animal-headed deities. It
seems terribly important to you to believe in *some* cosmic superbeing; like
to be an atheist and accept reality and all its implications is somehow a bad
thing.
> Once
> you make that leap, the ramifications of that leap guide the rest of
> your perspective.
> Of course, there are many *many* people who have never questioned their
> beliefs, in which case your brainwashing statement is probably
> appropriate. Nevertheless, a sweeping statement that negates the
> possibility of believing in God is IMHO ridiculous.
>
> just my one and a half pennies worth...
> terry
>
I think you may be pricing yourself a little high at one and a half pennies.
Martlet
John Popelish
>
> Bob,
>
> I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
> Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
> old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
> world is 10 million years old. But I would ask you this:
> How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
> when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
> with certainty if they are measured against something we
> already know to be 10 million years old? Without that
> certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
> And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
> as a fact.
Hope I'm not stepping on Bob here,
but the current estimate of Earth's age is between 4 and 5 billions
(that's 4000 to 5000 millions) of years, not 10 millions.
John Popelish
OrlandoFlorida
OK. I will revise my question accordingly.
In order for the Theory of Evolution to be true, the world
must be billions of years old. There are even some
scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
are measured against something we already know to be 4
or 5 billion years old? Without that certainty, their claims
John Popelish
> In order for the Theory of Evolution to be true, the world
> must be billions of years old. There are even some
> scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
> But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
> "instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
> those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
> are measured against something we already know to be 4
> or 5 billion years old? Without that certainty, their claims
> cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
> Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
Much better. Thank you.
And of course, the answer is that you should not
just accept these results if you have any reason to dispute them.
You should study the methods and mechanisms and trains of logic
that have been used to arrive at these numbers,
and see if they make sense to you.
The only negative of this approach is that such study
is a major effort for most people.
The totallity of knowledge is growing at a mind boggling rate.
You should at least start with popularizations of such science
by looking up related articles in periodicals like Scientific American.
I have subscribed since high school and consider this
as big a part of my education as my years in college.
They do their best to have the actual scientists doing the work
present it to the public at large.
And they are brutally honest about areas of disagreement
and uncertainty in most articles
because that is what drives the search for knowledge.
This helps you decide on the level of confidence
you should place in any particular aspect of the theories presented.
It is facinating to watch particular theories
grow and develope elaborate connections
to the rest of knowledge.
And ocasionally you get to see one overturned
and replaced by a better explanation.
However, there is no such thing as absolute certainty
when it comes to science.
To grant such certainty to any conclusion would be
to cut off all further possibility of advance in that area.
Regards,
John Popelish
P.S. if the scientists are off by a factor of 10 (a major error)
on this age estimate, and the Earth turned out to be
only 500 million years old,
do you think that this would disprove the theory of evolution?
OrlandoFlorida
John,
I appreciate the time you took to provide these
details. And, of course, you were honest and
sincere in what you said. I, too, read scientific
journals. The purpose of my post was to
challenge those who reject the Bible and insist
that the Theory of Evolution is an absolute fact.
My post was meant to demonstrate that what
the unbelievers rely on as absolute fact is not
really a fact, but entails much guesswork and
speculation.
Michael Cooper
>must be billions of years old.
Yeppers.... something in that neighbourhood
>There are even some
>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
That would be most of them actually...
>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>are measured against something we already know to be 4
>or 5 billion years old?
Event X happens every 10 years after time 0. You have evidence that event X
has occured Y times. Therefore XY years have elapsed since time 0. Okay not
such a good example. The age of rocks is measured (well one way of doing it)
by looking at the amount of Argon in the rock, compared with Potassium (I
think). When a rock is molten all bubbles of argon have time to escape.
There is a radioactive isotope of Potassium which decays into an isotope of
argon. Because we know that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate
(okay, I'm going to give you this...it's fit around a normal distribution,
but it still comes out even by definition) by comparing the relative amounts
of potassium and Argon it is possible to determine the time since the rock
has been molten. I think it might be a better idea if you consulted a little
more reliable refrence for the workings opf potassium argon dating.... also
it is not actually potassium argon dating but a diffrent pair of elements
which are used for dating... there are quite a few....
Now, something we also have is the idea of experimental error. No scientist
is arrogent enough to say that he or she can make results with 100%
accuracy. That is why we say the the earth is between 4 and 5 billion
years.... we could give a more accurate measurement.... but we couldn't be
sure it was right. For the most common ranges given there is a 95% or 68%
chance that the true reading lies within the range given (for a greater
chance of the true value lieing withing the range given the range is bigger)
>Without that certainty, their claims
>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
We do have certinty....... we are x% certian that the age of the earth is
between y and z years.
Michael Cooper
maff91
wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>world is 10 million years old. But I would ask you this:
According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known
to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments
rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and
often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Radiometric isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination
has occurred, while numerous theoretical calculations, experiments,
and astronomical observations support the notion that decay rates are
constant. See the Isochron Dating FAQ and the Age of
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
the Earth FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
>How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
>when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
>with certainty if they are measured against something we
>already know to be 10 million years old? Without that
>certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
>And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
>as a fact.
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological
evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from
shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic,
fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also
considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms
that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a
theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and oil exploration companies don't
think that you and your cult has anything to contribute to science.
Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
<http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
<http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
>
>News wrote in message <7d9iia$5lf$1...@news1.cableinet.co.uk>...
>>Bob,
>>will you please explain your theories(?) Forgive me, but the very fact that
>>you have said there are about 10 theories would suggest that they all have
>>faults. God is the rock on which every Christian builds there life I
>>believe in Him because He is alive today and I, along with millions of
>>others around the globe not only know of Him but know Him.
>>
>>
>>BobG <rgue...@monmouth.com> wrote in message
>>news:37094430...@news.monmouth.com...
>>> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 15:20:07 -0500, "Galen Surlak Ramsey"
>>> <gsu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>BobG
>>> >>Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of
>>> >evolution.
>>> >
>>> >Evolution is a theory-any biology teacher will attest to this.
>>Currently,
>>> >there are about ten forms of this theory as well, so could you please
>>> >specify-before ranting and raving-which theory we are in discussion of?
>>Or
>>> >are you just making a broad statement with no detailed basis?
>>> >
>>> >Semper Fidelis,
>>> >Galen
>>> Ranting and raving? Your understanding of the English language leads
>>> me to think you have, at most, a double digit I.Q.
maff91
wrote:
>John Popelish wrote in message <36F83C...@rica.net>...
>>OrlandoFlorida wrote:
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>>> Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>> old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>> world is 10 million years old. But I would ask you this:
>>> How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
>>> when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
>>> with certainty if they are measured against something we
>>> already know to be 10 million years old? Without that
>>> certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
>>> And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
>>> as a fact.
>>
>>Hope I'm not stepping on Bob here,
>>but the current estimate of Earth's age is between 4 and 5 billions
>>(that's 4000 to 5000 millions) of years, not 10 millions.
>>
>>John Popelish
>
>OK. I will revise my question accordingly.
>
>In order for the Theory of Evolution to be true, the world
>must be billions of years old. There are even some
>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>are measured against something we already know to be 4
>or 5 billion years old? Without that certainty, their claims
>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
That's why you and your cult won't be used as scientific advisors to
any high tech companies.
Ty Shrake
Dave wrote:
>
> >===>Do you HONESTLY believe in a "God" who deliberately "kept us
> >ignorant of science for many millennia"?
>
> And what has science done for humanity?
Saved millions of lives, possibly even yours. It allows us to
communicate in new and better ways. It also gave us the computer, like
the one you are sitting at right now. So if you don't like science then
you'll be consistent within your own viewpoint if you finish reading
this post and then unplug your computer and throw it out the window.
I would say that our medical
> technology is probably much better, but where else has science provided us
> with something we needed? We have a disintegrating ozone. Polluted waters
> and air.
Science isn't responsible for this. The irresponsible use of science
is.
>People stare on end at a box with pictures.
This is the fault of people, not science.
Cancer possibly
> caused by electricity(still unproven).
Then don't bother mentioning it.
Oil tankers crashed on shores.
Human error. Has nothing to do with science.
> If
> there's one thing that science has proven, it's that scientists rarely, if
> ever, examine things fully before implementing.
Wrong. Science is the most careful practice on the planet. You make
scientists sound like sloppy engineers, which is inaccurate. Engineers
sometimes make mistakes, as do scientists, but if you think it's because
of sloppy practices then you need some training in science.
Man has this odd desire to
> be in total control at all times and will jump at the first chance. It's
> like having an argument and the minute that he finds something that seems to
> make his opinion right, he declares victory and moves on.
This has nothing to do with science. You move from blaming science to
blaming people. Make up your mind.
>
> Evolution is not fact, it is simply a theory.
Wrong. Evolution is a fact. The *Theory* of Evolution is a set of
ideas put together in an attempt to explain the observable facts.
Why is it a theory? Because
> nobody has ever witnessed it. Period. There is no absolute proof.
Wrong. Evolution of viruses HAS been observed in controlled,
laboratory conditions. This is well documented. It has also been
observed in larger organisms such as insects.
> There
> is some evidence for it that would lead some to believe it.
You just said "There is no absolute proof." Make up your mind.
I have my
> doubts, though based on a lot of things such as the bio-chemical processes
> of the human body--but I'm not interested in debating evolution. If you
> want to put your vote in for evolution, that's your decision and one that
> you are free to make and one I can respect. I only say that you shouldn't
> close yourself off to other ideas,
It's not a question of 'closing oneslef off' to other ideas. It's a
question of refusing to entertain ideas that have zero scientific
credibility as though they do have scientific credibility.
especially if you want to argue for
> something, you should have extensive knowledge of both sides of the
> argument.
You mean like your extensive knowledge of evolution?
If you want to argue against God, I challenge you to do some
> research into Him.
In a strict sense, it is impossible to 'research God'. God is not
observable or measurable. The most we can research is what people say
about God, which usually gets us exactly nowhere.
Check out the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.
> If you have extensive knowledge of both sides and can still say that you are
> in favor of evolution, more power to you.
>
> Dave
This is the classic antiscience diatribe from christians. Facts are a
bitch, aren't they?
Your friend and mine,
...Ty
maff91
wrote:
[snip]
>
>John,
>
>I appreciate the time you took to provide these
>details. And, of course, you were honest and
>sincere in what you said. I, too, read scientific
>journals. The purpose of my post was to
>challenge those who reject the Bible and insist
>that the Theory of Evolution is an absolute fact.
>My post was meant to demonstrate that what
>the unbelievers rely on as absolute fact is not
>really a fact, but entails much guesswork and
>speculation.
Why don't you tell that to Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and oil
exploration companies?
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
: Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
: old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
: world is 10 million years old.
No there aren't. Cretinists, I mean creationists, are not scientists.
And by "scientist", I refer to one who follows proper scientific
procedures as regards to formulating hypothesis, testing theories, and
arriving at conclusions. Scientific inquiry is a process, and if not
followed, then what results is not science.
--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************
g&g
>I appreciate the time you took to provide these
>details. And, of course, you were honest and
>sincere in what you said. I, too, read scientific
>journals.
Glenn R. wrote:
I find this really hard to believe. Most of your statements remotely
relating to anything scientific shows a great deal of ignorance. That
doesn't mean you are stupid (although that is a distinct possibility), just
ignorant. Just exactly which scientific journals have you read, and how
frequently?
>The purpose of my post was to
>challenge those who reject the Bible and insist
>that the Theory of Evolution is an absolute fact.
Glenn R. wrote:
This is absolutely wrong. I know a lot of folks in various fields of
science that are connected in some way with the Theory of Evolution. Not a
single one of them would say the ToE is absolute fact. In fact, they would
be real fools to assert such a thing. You see, Evolution is a fact, not the
Theory of Evolution. You should not make such uninformed assertions. It
makes you look ignorant.
g&g
>>
>>Hope I'm not stepping on Bob here,
>>but the current estimate of Earth's age is between 4 and 5 billions
>>(that's 4000 to 5000 millions) of years, not 10 millions.
>>
>>John Popelish
>
>OK. I will revise my question accordingly.
>
>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>are measured against something we already know to be 4
>or 5 billion years old? Without that certainty, their claims
>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
>
>
You are obviously ignorant on this issue. You have accepted one side of an
argument without looking at the other except through the eyes of those with
whom you already agree. So what you say carries absolutely no weight in
this forum. Plus, you seem to require very rigid constraints on your
perception of the Theory of Evolution, but you do not place the same
requirements on your religious beliefs. You simply accept them with nothing
close to the rigor you seem to apply to science. Pretty silly, if you ask
me.
Julie Kale
>Bob,
>
>I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
>when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
>with certainty if they are measured against something we
>certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
>And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
>as a fact.
You do have something that is allready known to be millions of years old.
The elements in the rock. In fact, that is exactly what is being measured to
figure out the date of the material.
The dating of things older than thousands of years is done with different
elements. Their rate of decay is what is measured. We know through
observation that some elements have *very* slow rates of decay. Sometimes
you hear people stating that certain waste products from nuclear power
plants will be radioactive for x thousands of years, because we know that
those elements will not break down into other elements for thousands of
years. Some things are like clockwork. Carbon dating, which you guys love to
tout as being inaccurate, is actually quite accurate, but only up to the
50,000 yr mark. After that, it becomes completely unreliable.
The other method you might here so much about is Potassium - Argon dating,
which I consider to be highly accurate. There are other methods but these
are the two you hear mostly about.
The whole principle behind these methods of dating is the half-life and rate
of decay for each isotope. They are all naturally occuring and thus make
great time clocks. It's pretty hard to screw them up. Of course, there are
always mistakes, but even considering the margin of error, the track record
for these methods is pretty good.
--
~Julie Kale~
"Most illogical." - Spock.
"Meow." - Sparkle, my cat.
Aaron
<gsu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Nothing, except for his sig.
> <picks up piece of meat>
> Urrrrgggghhh
> <chomp chomp chomp>
> Orrhgaggh?
> <spits bone on floor>
> <tries to improve on design of club>
>
> Semper Fidelis,
> Galen
Semper Fi? Yeah right. I doubt even the Marines would take your sorry
ass. The don't _need_ cannon fodder in the Marine Corp these days.
Of course, they could use you as a doormat.
<plonk>
--
|Aaron I. Spielman|aa...@rockethouse.net|My opinions are my own|fnord!|
|Atheist #1467| Official Lunatic Biker of the EAC |www.rockethouse.net|
| "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, |
| hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats" ---H.L. Mencken |
OrlandoFlorida
I don't think anything in this area can be stated as
a concrete fact. There seems to be plenty of room
for doubt and uncertainty. In the area of science,
I prefer to accept as fact only that which is proven
beyond a doubt. Anything else constitutes an
educated belief.
maff91 wrote in message <370ec9cb...@news2.newscene.com>...
>On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:54:18 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Bob,
>>
>>I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>>Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>world is 10 million years old. But I would ask you this:
>
>According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known
>to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments
>rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and
>often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
> and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs.
>http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
>
>Radiometric isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination
>has occurred, while numerous theoretical calculations, experiments,
>and astronomical observations support the notion that decay rates are
>constant. See the Isochron Dating FAQ and the Age of
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
> the Earth FAQ.
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
>
>>How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
>>when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
>>with certainty if they are measured against something we
>>already know to be 10 million years old? Without that
>>certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
>>And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
>>as a fact.
>
>Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
>population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological
>evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from
>shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic,
>fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also
>considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms
>that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a
> theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
> Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
> Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
>
>Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and oil exploration companies don't
>think that you and your cult has anything to contribute to science.
>Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
><http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
><http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/
p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
>http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
>http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
>http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
>
>>
OrlandoFlorida
said, I don't think any assumption can be stated
as a fact. As a scientist myself, I prefer to label
as "fact" only what is known to be a fact, and to
regard everything else as theory or educated
guesswork.
Michael Cooper wrote in message <7dabtp$ttf$1...@news.eisa.net.au>...
>>In order for the Theory of Evolution to be true, the world
>>must be billions of years old.
>
>Yeppers.... something in that neighbourhood
>
>>There are even some
>>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
>
>That would be most of them actually...
>
>>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>>are measured against something we already know to be 4
>>or 5 billion years old?
>
>>Without that certainty, their claims
>>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
>
>
OrlandoFlorida
accept any theory as a genuine fact that I do work
as an advisor in the high tech industry.
maff91 wrote in message <372ae051...@news2.newscene.com>...
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:32:22 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>wrote:
>
>>John Popelish wrote in message <36F83C...@rica.net>...
>>>OrlandoFlorida wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bob,
>>>>
>>>> I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>>>> Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>>> old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>>> world is 10 million years old. But I would ask you this:
>>>> How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
>>>> when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
>>>> with certainty if they are measured against something we
>>>> already know to be 10 million years old? Without that
>>>> certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
>>>> And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
>>>> as a fact.
>>>
>>>Hope I'm not stepping on Bob here,
>>>but the current estimate of Earth's age is between 4 and 5 billions
>>>(that's 4000 to 5000 millions) of years, not 10 millions.
>>>
>>>John Popelish
>>
>>OK. I will revise my question accordingly.
>>
>>In order for the Theory of Evolution to be true, the world
>>must be billions of years old. There are even some
>>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
>>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>>are measured against something we already know to be 4
>>or 5 billion years old? Without that certainty, their claims
>>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
>
>That's why you and your cult won't be used as scientific advisors to
>any high tech companies.
>
OrlandoFlorida
>>details. And, of course, you were honest and
>>sincere in what you said. I, too, read scientific
>>challenge those who reject the Bible and insist
>>that the Theory of Evolution is an absolute fact.
>>the unbelievers rely on as absolute fact is not
>>really a fact, but entails much guesswork and
>>speculation.
>
>exploration companies?
>
><http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
><http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/
p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
>http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
>http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
>http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
>
>
>>
Why don't you?
OrlandoFlorida
>OrlandoFlorida (flo...@iag.net) wrote:
>
>: I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>: Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>: old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>: world is 10 million years old.
>
>
>And by "scientist", I refer to one who follows proper scientific
>procedures as regards to formulating hypothesis, testing theories, and
>arriving at conclusions. Scientific inquiry is a process, and if not
>followed, then what results is not science.
>
I agree. In fact, let's add an additional description to the definition
of a scientist. A scientist should be the first to acknowledge that he
or she does not know everything and will not insist on presenting
his or her theory as a "fact" unless it can be proved. If you think that
I am a "cretinist" for thinking this, then I must cast doubt on _your_
scientific methodology.
OrlandoFlorida
><snip>
>>>
>>>Hope I'm not stepping on Bob here,
>>>but the current estimate of Earth's age is between 4 and 5 billions
>>>(that's 4000 to 5000 millions) of years, not 10 millions.
>>>
>>>John Popelish
>>
>>OK. I will revise my question accordingly.
>>
>>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
>>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>>are measured against something we already know to be 4
>>or 5 billion years old? Without that certainty, their claims
>>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
>>
>>
>You are obviously ignorant on this issue. You have accepted one side of an
>argument without looking at the other except through the eyes of those with
>whom you already agree. So what you say carries absolutely no weight in
>this forum. Plus, you seem to require very rigid constraints on your
>perception of the Theory of Evolution, but you do not place the same
>requirements on your religious beliefs. You simply accept them with
nothing
>close to the rigor you seem to apply to science. Pretty silly, if you ask
>me.
>
If this is a demonstration of _your_ scientific approach, then
I am not impressed. You have not even attempted to answer the
question presented. As you state, I "seem to require very rigid
constraints on" my "perception of the Theory of Evolution." Indeed,
since that theory is presented as a scientific "fact," I do demand that
it be based on rock-solid facts, not on assumptions and guess-
work. Is that not what distinguishes genuine scientific inquiry from
superstition?
OrlandoFlorida
>>Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
>>when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
>>with certainty if they are measured against something we
>>certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
>>And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
>>as a fact.
>
Thank you for responding to my post. As you stated:
"You do have something that is allready known to be
millions of years old. The elements in the rock. In fact,
that is exactly what is being measured to figure out the
date of the material."
May I ask a simple question? How do you know that those
rocks are millions (or billions) of years old? It seems to me
that this is a "fact" which is merely taken for granted.
John Popelish
> John,
>
> I appreciate the time you took to provide these
> details. And, of course, you were honest and
> sincere in what you said. I, too, read scientific
> journals. The purpose of my post was to
> challenge those who reject the Bible and insist
> that the Theory of Evolution is an absolute fact.
> My post was meant to demonstrate that what
> the unbelievers rely on as absolute fact is not
> really a fact, but entails much guesswork and
> speculation.
Nice to be appreciated.
However, not one scientist claims that the theory of evolution
or any other scientific theory is an absolute fact.
They are the most useful explanations that have been devised
and tested against the facts.
The facts are the indisputable observations
of what the universe is and does.
Since scientific theories must pass any test that anyone can think of
in relation to the facts,
they are well beyond mere guesswork and speculation.
They may be someday proven to be incorrect,
but they have passed many tests, so far.
If you doubt any scientific theory,
you need to read up on the tests they have already passed.
John Popelish
P.S.
The only knowledge that is absolutely true
is that which is defined as absolutely true by virtue of faith.
In other words, it involves a special definition of the word true.
OrlandoFlorida
John,
If the others on this ng were as honest as you are,
I would not have needed to ask my question. :-)
Dave Oldridge
What is taken for granted is the consistency of physical law. Nobody
has ever encountered an extra-nuclear (i.e. ouside the nucleus) factor
that can change decay rates by more than about .2% (and those changes
tend to involve conditions highly inimical to life, yet creationists
blithely claim that they have been 1,000,000 times faster in the near
past (somehow without frying everything in and out of sight). Such
claims may be good religion (although I doubt it), but to call them
science is to lie.
Sometimes the claim is made that the laws of nature were radically
different in the recent past. That claim necessarily requires that
the differences be local to the earth (and our own system now that
we've started to examine pieces of it from off the earth). Otherwise
they would be immediately visible as radical physical differences in
the spectra of some relatively nearby stars.
To put it bluntly almost all the "evidence" for a young earth has been
manufactured, much of it "ex nihilo!"
Dave Oldridge
Sysop, Coastal Watch BBS
telnet://bbs.coastalw.com
ICQ 1800667
dold...@ocean.coastalw.com
g&g
OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbn29$ksi$1...@news.iag.net>...>>: I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>>: Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>: old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>: world is 10 million years old.
>>
>>
>>And by "scientist", I refer to one who follows proper scientific
>>procedures as regards to formulating hypothesis, testing theories, and
>>arriving at conclusions. Scientific inquiry is a process, and if not
>>followed, then what results is not science.
>>
>
>
>I agree. In fact, let's add an additional description to the definition
>of a scientist. A scientist should be the first to acknowledge that he
>or she does not know everything and will not insist on presenting
>his or her theory as a "fact" unless it can be proved. If you think that
>I am a "cretinist" for thinking this, then I must cast doubt on _your_
>scientific methodology.
>
>
I can't think of a one off-hand. Which scientific theories do you think
have been presented as fact? You really don't have a clue what science is
or how the process of science really works, do you?
>
>
g&g
OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbmr6$krq$1...@news.iag.net>...
>maff91 wrote in message <37370938...@news2.newscene.com>...
>>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:00:09 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>I appreciate the time you took to provide these
>>>details. And, of course, you were honest and
>>>sincere in what you said. I, too, read scientific
>>>journals. The purpose of my post was to
>>>challenge those who reject the Bible and insist
>>>that the Theory of Evolution is an absolute fact.
>>>My post was meant to demonstrate that what
>>>the unbelievers rely on as absolute fact is not
>>>really a fact, but entails much guesswork and
>>>speculation.
>>
>>exploration companies?
>>
>><http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
>><http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof
/
>p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
>>http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
>>http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
>>http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
>>
>>
>>>
>
>
>Why don't you?
>
>
you?
>
g&g
OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbmog$krd$1...@news.iag.net>...
>It is precisely because I insist on proof before I
>accept any theory as a genuine fact that I do work
>as an advisor in the high tech industry.
That is not science, my child. And, please tell us exactly which scientific
proofs you agree with. Before you go spouting off, I'll give you a little
hint. In science the word "proof" is not how you are throwing it about.
>
>maff91 wrote in message <372ae051...@news2.newscene.com>...
>>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:32:22 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John Popelish wrote in message <36F83C...@rica.net>...
>>>>OrlandoFlorida wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>
>>>>> I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>>>>> Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>>>> old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>>>> world is 10 million years old. But I would ask you this:
>>>>> How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
>>>>> when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
>>>>> with certainty if they are measured against something we
>>>>> already know to be 10 million years old? Without that
>>>>> certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
>>>>> And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
>>>>> as a fact.
>>>>
>>>>Hope I'm not stepping on Bob here,
>>>>but the current estimate of Earth's age is between 4 and 5 billions
>>>>(that's 4000 to 5000 millions) of years, not 10 millions.
>>>>
>>>>John Popelish
>>>
>>>OK. I will revise my question accordingly.
>>>
>>>In order for the Theory of Evolution to be true, the world
>>>must be billions of years old. There are even some
>>>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
>>>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>>>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>>>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>>>are measured against something we already know to be 4
>>>or 5 billion years old? Without that certainty, their claims
>>>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>>>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
>>
>>That's why you and your cult won't be used as scientific advisors to
>>any high tech companies.
>>
g&g
OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbmlk$kr3$1...@news.iag.net>...
>I appreciate your reply. But based on what you
>said, I don't think any assumption can be stated
>as a fact. As a scientist myself, I prefer to label
>as "fact" only what is known to be a fact, and to
>regard everything else as theory or educated
>guesswork.
Now you are saying you are a scientist! I find that really hard to believe.
Nearly everything you have posted cries out "I'm an ignorant asshole!" Your
questions are too unbelievably naive and immature for you to be any sort of
a scientist. Proove me wrong. Tell us what your field is, what degrees you
hold, how you apply your degrees, etc.
>
>Michael Cooper wrote in message <7dabtp$ttf$1...@news.eisa.net.au>...
>>>In order for the Theory of Evolution to be true, the world
>>>must be billions of years old.
>>
>>Yeppers.... something in that neighbourhood
>>
>>>There are even some
>>>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
>>
>>That would be most of them actually...
>>
>>>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>>>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>>>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>>>are measured against something we already know to be 4
>>>or 5 billion years old?
>>
>>>Without that certainty, their claims
>>>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>>>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
>>
>>
g&g
OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbmgm$kq6$1...@news.iag.net>...
>I'm sorry, but based on the responses I have seen,
>I don't think anything in this area can be stated as
>a concrete fact. There seems to be plenty of room
>for doubt and uncertainty. In the area of science,
>I prefer to accept as fact only that which is proven
>beyond a doubt. Anything else constitutes an
>educated belief.
>
Yet another wonderful example that your mind is made up so you absolutely
don't want to be confused by anything approaching logic or reason. You
have absolutely no understanding of how science works, do you? You say that
in science you prefer to accept as fact only that which is proven beyond a
doubt. So, I ask you, just exactly what in science has met that criteria
for you so far? Then, explain why the ToE and evolution do not likewise
qualify.
g&g
OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbnld$ku2$1...@news.iag.net>...>>>Bob,
>>>
>>>I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>>>Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>>old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>>world is 10 million years old. But I would ask you this:
>>>How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
>>>when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
>>>with certainty if they are measured against something we
>>>certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
>>>And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
>>>as a fact.
>>
It is very obvious by your question that your mind is already made up that
now one could ever understand anything to be millions of years old without
actually experiencing it fist-hand. Just because it seems unreasonable to
you only shows that you have never done any studying on the subject. Other
people have and their information is easily available in any library or by
doing a little surfing on the net. Why don't you do your own research.
Then ask specific questions on the stuff that is over your head.
g&g
OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbnfc$kth$1...@news.iag.net>...
>>>>but the current estimate of Earth's age is between 4 and 5 billions
>>>>(that's 4000 to 5000 millions) of years, not 10 millions.
>>>>
>>>>John Popelish
>>>
>>>OK. I will revise my question accordingly.
>>>
>>>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
>>>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>>>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>>>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>>>or 5 billion years old? Without that certainty, their claims
>>>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>>>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
>>>
>>>
>>You are obviously ignorant on this issue. You have accepted one side of
an
>>argument without looking at the other except through the eyes of those
with
>>whom you already agree. So what you say carries absolutely no weight in
>>this forum. Plus, you seem to require very rigid constraints on your
>>perception of the Theory of Evolution, but you do not place the same
>>requirements on your religious beliefs. You simply accept them with
>nothing
>>close to the rigor you seem to apply to science. Pretty silly, if you ask
>>me.
>>
>
>
>If this is a demonstration of _your_ scientific approach, then
>I am not impressed. You have not even attempted to answer the
>question presented. As you state, I "seem to require very rigid
>constraints on" my "perception of the Theory of Evolution." Indeed,
>since that theory is presented as a scientific "fact," I do demand that
>it be based on rock-solid facts, not on assumptions and guess-
>work. Is that not what distinguishes genuine scientific inquiry from
>superstition?
>
>
Theory - - - Of - - - Evolution - - - is - - - NOT - - - presented - - -
s - - - fact - - - period! Never - - - has - - - been - - - and - - -
never - - - will - - - be. Now, I'm going to start talking at regular speed
so you might miss this. You stated above "If this is a demonstration of
_your_ scientific approach, then I am not impressed. " Yet, I never said
anything about any scientific approach. I stated that you seemed to require
a lot from the ToE that you were unwilling to apply to your own view of
creation. The ToE is one of the most rigorous theories in science. Many
scientists rely on it daily. Many medications would not be possible were it
not for a solid understanding of the ToE. Just because you don't know a
damn thing about it except what you have read from the creationist side does
in no way mean that it is not rigorous. You have demonstrated your woeful
ignorance on the subject yet you continue to make assertions as though you
were some sort of expert who knows more about it than the thousands of
scientists who have devoted their life's work to it. Proof of your
ignorance is that when I made it clear the difference between evolution and
the Theory of Evolution you came right back and said the ToE is "is
presented as a scientific "fact," " Then you went on to absurdly say that
you DEMAND that it be based on "rock solid facts." Well whoopdee doo for
you. Who the hell are you to demand anything. Are you some guru in the
field that has any authority to demand anything? NOT! But, for you
edification, there are more "rock solid facts" supporting the ToE than
anyone could ever show you in a lifetime, literally. Go do some actual
studying of BOTH sides of the issue. I'm sure you'll be glad to know that
you have now qualified for my killfile.
PLONK!!!!
OrlandoFlorida
old the world is, measured by our present
system of measuring time. But it appears
to me that those who claim they _do_ know
for a certainty are not being very scientific
in making such claims.
Dave Oldridge wrote in message <36fa6801....@corp.supernews.com>...
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:54:03 -0500, in alt.christnet, "OrlandoFlorida"
><flo...@iag.net> wrote:
>
>>Julie Kale wrote in message ...
>>>OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7d9ks4$bud$1...@news.iag.net>...
>>>>Bob,
>>>>
>>>>I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>>>>Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>>>old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>>>world is 10 million years old. But I would ask you this:
>>>>How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
>>>>when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
>>>>with certainty if they are measured against something we
>>>>already know to be 10 million years old? Without that
>>>>certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
>>>>And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
>>>>as a fact.
>>>
OrlandoFlorida
>
>OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbn29$ksi$1...@news.iag.net>...
>>cz...@ecn.ab.ca wrote in message <36f90...@ecn.ab.ca>...
>>>OrlandoFlorida (flo...@iag.net) wrote:
>>>
>>>: Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>>: old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>>: world is 10 million years old.
>>>
>>>
>>>And by "scientist", I refer to one who follows proper scientific
>>>procedures as regards to formulating hypothesis, testing theories, and
>>>arriving at conclusions. Scientific inquiry is a process, and if not
>>>followed, then what results is not science.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I agree. In fact, let's add an additional description to the definition
>>of a scientist. A scientist should be the first to acknowledge that he
>>or she does not know everything and will not insist on presenting
>>his or her theory as a "fact" unless it can be proved. If you think that
>>I am a "cretinist" for thinking this, then I must cast doubt on _your_
>>scientific methodology.
>>
>>
>No scientist would ever be so crass to present a scientific theory as fact.
>I can't think of a one off-hand. Which scientific theories do you think
>have been presented as fact? You really don't have a clue what science is
>or how the process of science really works, do you?
As a matter of fact, I do. Apparently, you have not
been following this thread very long, or you would know
that there are some who present theories as though
they are Gospel. I think I'm being much more scientific
in challenging this than they are in asserting their beliefs.
OrlandoFlorida
>
>OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbmr6$krq$1...@news.iag.net>...
>>maff91 wrote in message <37370938...@news2.newscene.com>...
>>>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:00:09 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>John,
>>>>
>>>>I appreciate the time you took to provide these
>>>>details. And, of course, you were honest and
>>>>sincere in what you said. I, too, read scientific
>>>>journals. The purpose of my post was to
>>>>challenge those who reject the Bible and insist
>>>>that the Theory of Evolution is an absolute fact.
>>>>My post was meant to demonstrate that what
>>>>the unbelievers rely on as absolute fact is not
>>>>really a fact, but entails much guesswork and
>>>>speculation.
>>>
>>>Why don't you tell that to Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and oil
>>>exploration companies?
>>>
>>><http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
>>><http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonpro
f
>>p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
>>>http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
>>>http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
>>>http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>You do realize what an absolute asshole you are making of yourself, don't
>you?
No. Why don't you prove your point?
My complaint is against presenting conclusions as
though they rested on absolute facts. Your conclusion,
I submit, is a perfect example of this.
OrlandoFlorida
>
>OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbmog$krd$1...@news.iag.net>...
>>It is precisely because I insist on proof before I
>>accept any theory as a genuine fact that I do work
>>as an advisor in the high tech industry.
>
>That is not science, my child. And, please tell us exactly which
scientific
>proofs you agree with. Before you go spouting off, I'll give you a little
>hint. In science the word "proof" is not how you are throwing it about.
>>
Obviously, we don't agree on what constitutes "proof."
And I question if we even agree on what "science" is.
OrlandoFlorida
>
>OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbmlk$kr3$1...@news.iag.net>...
>>I appreciate your reply. But based on what you
>>said, I don't think any assumption can be stated
>>as a fact. As a scientist myself, I prefer to label
>>as "fact" only what is known to be a fact, and to
>>regard everything else as theory or educated
>>guesswork.
>
>Now you are saying you are a scientist! I find that really hard to
believe.
I think you will be shocked when I state that I do not care
what you believe.
>Nearly everything you have posted cries out "I'm an ignorant asshole!"
Is that your "scientific" conclusion?
>Your
>questions are too unbelievably naive and immature for you to be any sort of
>a scientist.
Your "scientific" opinion, no doubt?
If you have nothing better to offer to our understanding than
this, why do you bother to post messages?
OrlandoFlorida
My statement, made previously, is indisputable. I think I'm
being much more rationale than you are.
OrlandoFlorida
>
>OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbnld$ku2$1...@news.iag.net>...
>>Julie Kale wrote in message ...
>>>OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7d9ks4$bud$1...@news.iag.net>...
>>>>Bob,
>>>>
>>>>I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>>>>Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>>>old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>You lazy SOB. Why should anyone take the time to educate you on this
stuff.
>It is very obvious by your question that your mind is already made up that
>now one could ever understand anything to be millions of years old without
>actually experiencing it fist-hand. Just because it seems unreasonable to
>you only shows that you have never done any studying on the subject. Other
>people have and their information is easily available in any library or by
>doing a little surfing on the net. Why don't you do your own research.
>Then ask specific questions on the stuff that is over your head.
So, my question remains unanswered. Neither you nor
anyone else can prove it. Then don't try to push your theories
off on others as though they were a "scientific fact." Not all of
us are gullible idiots, you know.
OrlandoFlorida
>
>OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbnfc$kth$1...@news.iag.net>...
>>g&g wrote in message <7db2k0$ava$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hope I'm not stepping on Bob here,
>>>>>but the current estimate of Earth's age is between 4 and 5 billions
>>>>>(that's 4000 to 5000 millions) of years, not 10 millions.
>>>>>
>>>>>John Popelish
>>>>
>>>>OK. I will revise my question accordingly.
>>>>
>>>>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
>>>>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>>>>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>>>>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>>>>or 5 billion years old? Without that certainty, their claims
>>>>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>>>>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
>>>>
>>>>
I think you are the brainless one, since I have already stated
the reason for asking my question. Sorry if my question rattled
your beliefs to the core and forced you to think. But someone
had to ask it. And thank you for admitting that the Theory of
Evolution is not a proven fact, although there are others who
have attempted to present it as such.
OrlandoFlorida
>OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7dbnld$ku2$1...@news.iag.net>...
>>Thank you for responding to my post. As you stated:
>>
>>"You do have something that is allready known to be
>>millions of years old. The elements in the rock. In fact,
>>that is exactly what is being measured to figure out the
>>date of the material."
>>
>>May I ask a simple question? How do you know that those
>>rocks are millions (or billions) of years old? It seems to me
>>that this is a "fact" which is merely taken for granted.
>
>I do not know what your background is in either chemistry or mathematics,
so
>I will make it as simple as I possibly can. I will assume that you have a
>basic understanding of chemistry and you understand the terms elements,
>atomic number, etc.
>Elements with atomic numbers greater than 82 <meaning, they have more than
>82 protons in their nucleus>, are for the most part considered unstable and
>radioactive.
>Elements whose atomic numbers fall below 82 are either stable or unstable,
>depending upon the properties that particular element's various isotopes.
>It has been shown via experment that these unstable elements "decay" at
>certain rates. Meaning they lose one or more protons due to chemical
>reaction.
>Let's take an example. The isotope cobalt-60. I can state with great
>certainty that the half life of this isotope is 5.27 yrs. The term "half
>life" is used to describe the amount of time it takes for the substance to
>decrease by half. So, in the case of cobalt-60, I can say that if I had 10
>grams of it today, 5.27 yrs from now I'd have only 5 grams of it, after
>10.54 yrs, 2.5 grams of it, and so on.
>What gives me the confidance to say that? A couple of mathematical
forumlas.
>Let's say that you and I do this experiment, we measure out our element,
and
>discover that we have do indeed have 10 g of Cobalt-60. Now, let's say we
>wait 2 yrs, and come back to find that we only have aprox*. 7.7 g of it.
The
>appoximation of the sample will make our final outcome a little off, but
>that is marginal at best.
>Thus we have three variables in our possesion: O = the amount of the
>original sample (10g). A = the new amount of the sample (7.7g). And T = the
>amount of time that has passed. (2yrs.)
>From this information we can figure out our half life. (T1/2) The equation
>is as follows:
>
>T1/2= 0.693 / K
>
>But what is K? You notice we don't have that yet.
>K is the rate constant for this particular sample. We find K by using this
>equation:
>
>{ [ log (O/A) ] 2.303 } / T = K
>
>Fill in the blanks and work your way through it.
>
>{ [ log (10g/7.7g) ] 2.303 } / 2 yr = K
>(1 - 0.8864907) 2.303 / 2 yr = K
>(0.1135093) 2.303 / 2 yr = K
>0.2614119 / 2yr = K
>0.130706 yr = K
>
>Now that we have K, we can fill in the blanks with our original equation.
>
>T1/2 = 0.693 / K
>
>T1/2 = 0.693 / 0.130706 yr
>T1/2 = 5.3 yr.
>
>Now, remember in the begining I said that because our 7.7 g measurment was
>approximate, that we would get some inaccuracy. That is the reason for the
>0.03 offset. It's the margin of error that scientists grant when making
>calculations. Now that we have our half life we know automatically that if
>you have 10g of Cobalt-60 that in 5.27 yrs you will only have 5.
>Now, you may ask yourself, how do I know this equation really works? Well,
>using this equation we can predict the expected quanitites for Cobalt-60
at
>any given length of time that has passed. And true enough, Cobalt-60 has
>through observation followed this equation to the number time and time
>again.
>Now, here is the beauty of it. This equation works not only for Cobalt-60,
>but for a plethora of other isotopes, up to and including Uranium-238 and
>Carbon-14. When these things are found naturally, esp. in older objects,
>their quantities can be measured, compared with samples which are known to
>be "young", and from this comparison an age can be deducted.
>
>--
>~Julie Kale~
>"Most illogical." - Spock.
>"Meow." - Sparkle, my cat.
>
>
Thank you for responding Julie. Like you, I do understand
math and chemistry. But the point I am making is not related
to any particular discipline of science. It can be applied to
any scientific inquiry. For example: how do we know - with
certainty - that radioactive substances, for example, have
degenerated at a consistent rate over the past - say - 5
billion years? To dismiss this question is to violate a key
part of the scientific creed. Perhaps variations in temperature,
pressure, etc., influenced the rate of radioactive decay.
I'm not saying that it did happen. But I don't think any
reasonable person could claim otherwise. My original
question, please remember, was intended only to demonstrate
that the certainty claimed by some can be justly challenged.
OrlandoFlorida
>We shall see just how lazy this person is. :)
>I have given him\her quite a good bit to think about. It is not easily
>dismissed.
Julie,
I have already answered your previous post. :-)
OrlandoFlorida
>It seems that we have 'lost the plot' - Let us consider that the earth is
>millions of years old, this does not disprove God under any circumstances,
>nor does it prove the theory of Darwin. God made Adam at an age, he was
not
>a baby, he was mature. In the same way could not God have made the earth
at
>an age? God created the earth, did He make a full sized tree on the earth?
>How old was the tree? in fact it was only one day old, but in science it
was
>hundreds of years old.
I concur with your reasoning. But no one can claim to know
something as a scientific fact when it is based on something
that can not be proved.
OrlandoFlorida
>Ok... here are the facts.
>
>All argon gas is released from rocks in a molten state.
>
>A common isotope of Potassium decays into argon.
>
>We know the rate at which this decay occurs.
>
>Are you disputing any of these facts?
You have offered no proof that these have been
consistent facts over the past 4 or 5 billion
years, which is necessary in order to claim that
these things can be used to accurately measure
that period of time.
>If you are a scientist then I am Jesus Christ. The fact that you did not
>know the uncertinty built into any measurement is proof of this. For crying
>out loud! I learnt that stuff in Year 11.
I think my scientific credentials remain intact. But
I seriously doubt if you are Jesus Christ.
I am well aware of the "uncertainty" of which you speak.
My point is - Are you? Based on your statement, then
you are in agreement with me. Thank you.
OrlandoFlorida
>
>OrlandoFlorida <flo...@iag.net> wrote in message
>news:7dc3hf$nn6$1...@news.iag.net...
>take the things that God through His word has said He will do and can done,
>and has done. And then we test them, we will find that God and His word
are
>true. If we do this then working on probability we can say that all
>scripture is true.
>
I agree with you. :-)
It is not Scripture that I challenge. It is the claim of
"scientific proof" where no scientific proof really exists
that I challenge.
OrlandoFlorida
>This is absolutely wrong. I know a lot of folks in various fields of
>science that are connected in some way with the Theory of Evolution. Not a
>single one of them would say the ToE is absolute fact. In fact, they would
>be real fools to assert such a thing.
Thank you. I agree. I wish that everyone would acknowledge
this.
>You see, Evolution is a fact, not the
>Theory of Evolution. You should not make such uninformed assertions. It
>makes you look ignorant.
So, I am ignorant? How can Evolution be a fact, if the
Theory on which it is based is _not_ a fact?
I think the ignorance is on your side.
OrlandoFlorida
become
>far to wise in its own eyes
>>
Again, I agree with you. I think the world thinks it is much
"wiser" than it really is.
OrlandoFlorida
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:44:17 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>wrote:
>frequency over time - observed, reproduceable fact), speciation (the
>generation of a new species by evolution, again observed and
>repeatable if more difficult to repeat), common descent (i.e. we all
>evolved from a common ancestor, NOT repeatable but we have sufficient
>evidence that most biologists would class it as a solid fact), the
>history of which species evolved from which other species and when
>(based mainly on a scarce fossil record, so only certain in the
>broadest generalities), abiogenesis (life coming into being - logic
>says it must have happened, how exactly is *way* open to debate) and
>(finally) the many different theories of evolution which seek to model
>how the process of evolution leads to the observed species and fossil
>records we see today.
>--
>Gavin Wheeler
>Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
Thank you for your response. I think what you are defining as
"evolution" is not what most people think of when that word is
used in conversation. But your explanations appear reasonable
and it would appear that we can agree that there is no one
scientific Theory that rests on facts which cannot be challenged.
g&g
Gavin Wheeler wrote in message <36f99857....@news.sfu.ca>...
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:44:17 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>Glenn R. wrote:
>>>This is absolutely wrong. I know a lot of folks in various fields of
>>>science that are connected in some way with the Theory of Evolution. Not
a
>>>single one of them would say the ToE is absolute fact. In fact, they
would
>>>be real fools to assert such a thing.
>>
>>Thank you. I agree. I wish that everyone would acknowledge
>>this.
>>
>>>You see, Evolution is a fact, not the
>>>Theory of Evolution. You should not make such uninformed assertions. It
>>>makes you look ignorant.
>>
>>So, I am ignorant? How can Evolution be a fact, if the
>>Theory on which it is based is _not_ a fact?
>>
>>I think the ignorance is on your side.
Oh? How so? It is quite common to have theories that are not stated as
proof based on solid facts. For example, let's say your neighbor was shot
and killed in his home. There is a mess in the house, furniture overturned,
stuff thrown all over the place, and all the jewelry, electronic equipment,
and money are missing. Those are facts. A person is dead, the house is a
mess, and valuable things are missing. Now, in order to figure out what
happened the investigators would come up with theories based on the facts
that would help them to get to the truth. They may say that it was a
routine theft interrupeted by the homeowner who paid for the intrusion with
his life. Or they may find say that it looked like an angry son was getting
revenge. (because another fact was that the man's son had run away from
home and was known to have a strained relationship with his father) Both of
these theories are consistent with the facts but they are far from proof.
More investigation is needed to decide which one or perhaps a completely
different one is the most likely. This is how science works. An observed
phenomenon is considered a fact. The theories to explain the facts are
never pronounced as "proof." They are only the best explanation we have at
the moment. Nearly every theory in science routinely changes as we explore
deeper and deeper into nature. Just like the criminal investigator would
change theories to explain the death/robery scene as they test, interrogate
witnesses and suspects, check alibis, etc. Eventually they get enough facts
to place someone before a jury of their peers. Evolution has been observed
so it is a fact. Undisputed and not up for disagreement. Even many of the
better creationists (Behe, for example) admit that evolution has and is
happening. Again I say, Evolution is a fact. The ToE is an attempt to
explain how the known facts happen. It is not purported to be proof, just
the best explanation we have at the moment. So, now that I have gone way
out of my way to explain such an elementary issue of science I hope you see
how completely ignorant your assertions have been. And your little jab at me
when you said, "I think the ignorance is on your side." again shows your
extreme ignorance of things scientific. That is my theory, it is not proof
that you are an imbecile. It is just the best explanation of the observed
facts. See how it works for lots of things?
g&g
>>>Now you are saying you are a scientist! I find that really hard to
>>believe.
>>
>>I think you will be shocked when I state that I do not care
>>what you believe.
But you certainly seem to care what we think of you. You come to this NG
spouting a bunch of ignorant bullshit trying to impress us with your
blithering drivel and then you get miffed when you are caught in your
ignorance. And since you refuse to tell us what sort of scientist you are
(a high-tech consultant is NOT a scientist) I will now add to my opinion
the fact that you seem to be a liar as well as an asshole.
>>
>>>Nearly everything you have posted cries out "I'm an ignorant asshole!"
>>
>>Is that your "scientific" conclusion?
You have done this little dodge several times. Saying things that I say are
somehow "scientific" when there is absolutely no reference to anything
scientific. I did not make any sort of a scientific conclusion at all. I
stated a legitimate opinion based on all the ignorant crap you have thrown
at science and then claiming you are a scientist and then later you claim to
be some sort of consultant in some high tech industry. You have stated that
you only accept scientific theories that have been proven with rock solid
evidence but you refuse to mention even one such theory. You say that the
theory of evolution is touted as fact when it is, in fact, not. You
repeated this claim even though it was pointed out to you to be incorrect.
So, based on the facts,I repeat my opinion, you are an ignorant asshole when
it comes to anything scientific.
<snip>
maff91
wrote:
>I'm sorry, but based on the responses I have seen,
>I don't think anything in this area can be stated as
>a concrete fact. There seems to be plenty of room
>for doubt and uncertainty. In the area of science,
>I prefer to accept as fact only that which is proven
>beyond a doubt. Anything else constitutes an
>educated belief.
Your cult belief is of no interest to science or business.
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=458362583
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=458416459
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=458340801
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457922334
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457214787
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456896004
http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=454822137
OrlandoFlorida
>
>Gavin Wheeler wrote in message <36f99857....@news.sfu.ca>...
>>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:44:17 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Glenn R. wrote:
>>>>This is absolutely wrong. I know a lot of folks in various fields of
>>>>science that are connected in some way with the Theory of Evolution.
Not
>a
>>>>single one of them would say the ToE is absolute fact. In fact, they
>would
>>>>be real fools to assert such a thing.
>>>
>>>Thank you. I agree. I wish that everyone would acknowledge
>>>this.
>>>
>>>>You see, Evolution is a fact, not the
>>>>Theory of Evolution. You should not make such uninformed assertions.
It
>>>>makes you look ignorant.
>>>
>>>So, I am ignorant? How can Evolution be a fact, if the
>>>Theory on which it is based is _not_ a fact?
>>>
>>>I think the ignorance is on your side.
>
>Oh? How so? It is quite common to have theories that are not stated as
>proof based on solid facts.
Thank you. Since we agree, why continue the discussion?
maff91
wrote:
>I appreciate your reply. But based on what you
>said, I don't think any assumption can be stated
>as a fact. As a scientist myself, I prefer to label
Do you understand what a theory means in a scientific context?
>as "fact" only what is known to be a fact, and to
>regard everything else as theory or educated
>guesswork.
"What Is This Thing Called Science? : An Assessment of the Nature and
Status of Science and Its Methods" by A. F. Chalmers Paperback 2nd
edition (March 1995) Hackett Pub Co; ISBN: 087220149X
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087220149X/
[snip]
maff91
wrote:
>It is precisely because I insist on proof before I
>accept any theory as a genuine fact that I do work
>as an advisor in the high tech industry.
Who are you kidding?
So why are you unable to convince the Supreme Court, scientific and
business world that creationist fundie cults are doing any science?
Edwards v. Aguillard: U.S. Supreme Court Decision
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html
Read the U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with creationism in
public school science classrooms. The majority opinions and the
dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia are provided along with the
amicus curiae brief filed by 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and other high tech companies who are
investing billions in developing new technologies, medicines and other
products and services based on the theory of evolution don't seem to
buy your argument.
What is Darwinian Medicine?
http://157.242.64.83/hbes/medicine.htm
Evolution and Origins of disease
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html
Gene Therapy
http://www.natx.com/
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
Genetic Engineering in the Agriculture industry
http://www.pcug.org.au/~jallen/coggene.htm
http://www.pavich.com/links.htm
Oil industry
<http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
I quote from _The Origins of Order_ by Stuart Kauffmam
(Page xv) "Thus it is possible to explore sequence spaces for the
first time. I believe this exploration will lead in the coming decades
to what might be called "Applied Molecular Evolution" with very great
medical and industrial implications, such as rapid evolution of new
drugs, vaccines, biosensors, and catalysts".
Creationism is only used by fundamentalist religion business.
Talk Origins Archive FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the
scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of
the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge
he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus
offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk
nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based
in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an
embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in
the Christian and laugh to scorn."
-- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis)
>
>maff91 wrote in message <372ae051...@news2.newscene.com>...
>>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:32:22 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John Popelish wrote in message <36F83C...@rica.net>...
>>>>OrlandoFlorida wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>
>>>>> I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>>>>> Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>>>> old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>>>> world is 10 million years old. But I would ask you this:
>>>>> How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
>>>>> when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
>>>>> with certainty if they are measured against something we
>>>>> already know to be 10 million years old? Without that
>>>>> certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
>>>>> And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
>>>>> as a fact.
>>>>
>>>>Hope I'm not stepping on Bob here,
>>>>but the current estimate of Earth's age is between 4 and 5 billions
>>>>(that's 4000 to 5000 millions) of years, not 10 millions.
>>>>
>>>>John Popelish
>>>
>>>OK. I will revise my question accordingly.
>>>
>>>In order for the Theory of Evolution to be true, the world
>>>must be billions of years old. There are even some
>>>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
>>>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>>>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>>>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>>>are measured against something we already know to be 4
>>>or 5 billion years old? Without that certainty, their claims
>>>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>>>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
>>
>>That's why you and your cult won't be used as scientific advisors to
>>any high tech companies.
>>
>><http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
>><http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/
maff91
wrote:
>maff91 wrote in message <37370938...@news2.newscene.com>...
>>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:00:09 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>John,
>>>
>>>I appreciate the time you took to provide these
>>>details. And, of course, you were honest and
>>>sincere in what you said. I, too, read scientific
>>>journals. The purpose of my post was to
>>>challenge those who reject the Bible and insist
>>>that the Theory of Evolution is an absolute fact.
>>>My post was meant to demonstrate that what
>>>the unbelievers rely on as absolute fact is not
>>>really a fact, but entails much guesswork and
>>>speculation.
>>
>>Why don't you tell that to Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and oil
>>exploration companies?
>>
>><http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
>><http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/
>p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
>>http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
>>http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
>>http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
>>
>>
>>>
>
>
>Why don't you?
I did. They don't think creationists know anything about evolutionary
biology or geology. Your cult belief doesn't interest them.
OrlandoFlorida
>
>>>>Now you are saying you are a scientist! I find that really hard to
>>>believe.
>>>
>>>I think you will be shocked when I state that I do not care
>>>what you believe.
>
>But you certainly seem to care what we think of you. You come to this NG
>spouting a bunch of ignorant bullshit trying to impress us with your
>blithering drivel and then you get miffed when you are caught in your
>ignorance. And since you refuse to tell us what sort of scientist you are
>(a high-tech consultant is NOT a scientist) I will now add to my opinion
>the fact that you seem to be a liar as well as an asshole.
You have utterly failed to even address the issue.
If name-calling were sufficient answer, you'd win
an award.
>>>
>>>>Nearly everything you have posted cries out "I'm an ignorant asshole!"
>>>
>>>Is that your "scientific" conclusion?
>
>You have done this little dodge several times. Saying things that I say
are
>somehow "scientific" when there is absolutely no reference to anything
>scientific.
That's a clever dodge, since the subject is all
about scientific analysis and conclusions.
>You have stated that
>you only accept scientific theories
...as certain fact (a minor point to you, but not to me) ...
> that have been proven with rock solid
>evidence
Gee, I think you missed the point. What rock solid evidence?
Calling me names doesn't answer the question.
>You say that the
>theory of evolution is touted as fact when it is, in fact, not.
I never said that. I stated that _some_ people tout it as a fact.
You agree with me that it is not. Good. We agree. I'm
satisfied with your conclusion.
>You
>repeated this claim even though it was pointed out to you to be incorrect.
You facts are not correct.
Therefore, your conclusion cannot stand:
>So, based on the facts,I repeat my opinion, you are an ignorant asshole
when
>it comes to anything scientific.
Let's repeat what matters here:
"You say that the theory of evolution is touted as fact
when it is, in fact, not."
I agree - it is not a fact.
OrlandoFlorida
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:34:33 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry, but based on the responses I have seen,
>>I don't think anything in this area can be stated as
>>a concrete fact. There seems to be plenty of room
>>for doubt and uncertainty. In the area of science,
>>I prefer to accept as fact only that which is proven
>>beyond a doubt. Anything else constitutes an
>>educated belief.
>
>Your cult belief is of no interest to science or business.
Cult of belief? Gee, all I did was ask a question!
Sorry if I shook your beliefs to their very core.
maff91
wrote:
>cz...@ecn.ab.ca wrote in message <36f90...@ecn.ab.ca>...
>>OrlandoFlorida (flo...@iag.net) wrote:
>>
>>: I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>>: Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>: old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>: world is 10 million years old.
>>
>>No there aren't. Cretinists, I mean creationists, are not scientists.
>>
>>And by "scientist", I refer to one who follows proper scientific
>>procedures as regards to formulating hypothesis, testing theories, and
>>arriving at conclusions. Scientific inquiry is a process, and if not
>>followed, then what results is not science.
>>
>
>
>I agree. In fact, let's add an additional description to the definition
>of a scientist. A scientist should be the first to acknowledge that he
>or she does not know everything and will not insist on presenting
>his or her theory as a "fact" unless it can be proved. If you think that
>I am a "cretinist" for thinking this, then I must cast doubt on _your_
>scientific methodology.
Are you a commie? Free enterprise will never buy your cult belief.
Oil industry
<http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
OrlandoFlorida
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:37:13 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I appreciate your reply. But based on what you
>>said, I don't think any assumption can be stated
>>as a fact. As a scientist myself, I prefer to label
>
>Do you understand what a theory means in a scientific context?
Yes, I do. Do you? Don't you just hate it when others try
to push theories as though they were absolute facts?
>>as "fact" only what is known to be a fact, and to
>>regard everything else as theory or educated
>>guesswork.
So my statements are valid. Why would any honest person
disagree?
maff91
wrote:
>g&g wrote in message <7db2k0$ava$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>Hope I'm not stepping on Bob here,
>>>>but the current estimate of Earth's age is between 4 and 5 billions
>>>>(that's 4000 to 5000 millions) of years, not 10 millions.
>>>>
>>>>John Popelish
>>>
>>>OK. I will revise my question accordingly.
>>>
>>>In order for the Theory of Evolution to be true, the world
>>>must be billions of years old. There are even some
>>>scientists who claim that the world is 4 or 5 billion years old.
>>>But I would ask you this: How can we rely on the measuring
>>>"instruments" of these scientists, when the realiability of
>>>those instruments can only be known with certainty if they
>>>are measured against something we already know to be 4
>>>or 5 billion years old? Without that certainty, their claims
>>>cannot be believed with certainty. And without that certainty,
>>>Darwanism cannot be presented as a fact.
>>>
>>>
>>Glenn R. wrote:
>>You are obviously ignorant on this issue. You have accepted one side of an
>>argument without looking at the other except through the eyes of those with
>>whom you already agree. So what you say carries absolutely no weight in
>>this forum. Plus, you seem to require very rigid constraints on your
>>perception of the Theory of Evolution, but you do not place the same
>>requirements on your religious beliefs. You simply accept them with
>nothing
>>close to the rigor you seem to apply to science. Pretty silly, if you ask
>>me.
>>
>
>
>If this is a demonstration of _your_ scientific approach, then
>I am not impressed. You have not even attempted to answer the
>question presented. As you state, I "seem to require very rigid
>constraints on" my "perception of the Theory of Evolution." Indeed,
>since that theory is presented as a scientific "fact," I do demand that
>it be based on rock-solid facts, not on assumptions and guess-
>work. Is that not what distinguishes genuine scientific inquiry from
>superstition?
Are you a moron?
Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a
population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological
evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from
shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic,
fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also
considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms
that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a
theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
OrlandoFlorida
>Who are you kidding?
No one. Who are you kidding?
If my original question was so stupid, why can't anyone
answer it?
[Hint: Those with higher levels of intelligence were wise
enough to agree with me. You might take a cue from
them.]
maff91
wrote:
>Julie Kale wrote in message ...
>>OrlandoFlorida wrote in message <7d9ks4$bud$1...@news.iag.net>...
>>>Bob,
>>>
>>>I also have a question for you. In order for the Theory of
>>>Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>>old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>>world is 10 million years old. But I would ask you this:
>>>How can we rely on the "instruments" of these scientists,
>>>when the realiability of those instruments can only be known
>>>with certainty if they are measured against something we
>>>already know to be 10 million years old? Without that
>>>certainty, their claims cannot be believed with certainty.
>>>And without that certainty, Darwanism cannot be presented
>>>as a fact.
>>
>>You do have something that is allready known to be millions of years old.
>>The elements in the rock. In fact, that is exactly what is being measured
>to
>>figure out the date of the material.
>>The dating of things older than thousands of years is done with different
>>elements. Their rate of decay is what is measured. We know through
>>observation that some elements have *very* slow rates of decay. Sometimes
>>you hear people stating that certain waste products from nuclear power
>>plants will be radioactive for x thousands of years, because we know that
>>those elements will not break down into other elements for thousands of
>>years. Some things are like clockwork. Carbon dating, which you guys love
>to
>>tout as being inaccurate, is actually quite accurate, but only up to the
>>50,000 yr mark. After that, it becomes completely unreliable.
>>The other method you might here so much about is Potassium - Argon dating,
>>which I consider to be highly accurate. There are other methods but these
>>are the two you hear mostly about.
>>The whole principle behind these methods of dating is the half-life and
>rate
>>of decay for each isotope. They are all naturally occuring and thus make
>>great time clocks. It's pretty hard to screw them up. Of course, there are
>>always mistakes, but even considering the margin of error, the track record
>>for these methods is pretty good.
>>
>>--
>>~Julie Kale~
>>"Most illogical." - Spock.
>>"Meow." - Sparkle, my cat.
>>
>>
>
>
>Thank you for responding to my post. As you stated:
>
>"You do have something that is allready known to be
>millions of years old. The elements in the rock. In fact,
>that is exactly what is being measured to figure out the
>date of the material."
>
>May I ask a simple question? How do you know that those
>rocks are millions (or billions) of years old? It seems to me
>that this is a "fact" which is merely taken for granted.
Oil industry is not buying your cult belief.
<http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonprof/p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
http://130.11.54.143/factsheets/organicgeochem/organic.html
http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known
to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments
rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and
often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Radiometric isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination
has occurred, while numerous theoretical calculations, experiments,
and astronomical observations support the notion that decay rates are
constant. See the Isochron Dating FAQ and the Age of
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
the Earth FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
OrlandoFlorida
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:40:03 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>wrote:
>
>>maff91 wrote in message <37370938...@news2.newscene.com>...
>>>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 02:00:09 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>John,
>>>>
>>>>I appreciate the time you took to provide these
>>>>details. And, of course, you were honest and
>>>>sincere in what you said. I, too, read scientific
>>>>journals. The purpose of my post was to
>>>>challenge those who reject the Bible and insist
>>>>that the Theory of Evolution is an absolute fact.
>>>>My post was meant to demonstrate that what
>>>>the unbelievers rely on as absolute fact is not
>>>>really a fact, but entails much guesswork and
>>>>speculation.
>>>
>>>Why don't you tell that to Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical and oil
>>>exploration companies?
>>>
>>><http://x12.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=426163336>
>>><http://webadv.chron.com/house/interactive/nonprof/interactive/hci/nonpro
f/
>>p/perspectives/corporate/wildcatter.html>
>>>http://www.sciam.com/explorations/082597cambrian/powell.html
>>>http://www.geo.utexas.edu/report/programs/petrol.html
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>I did. They don't think creationists know anything about evolutionary
>biology or geology. Your cult belief doesn't interest them.
>
>http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=458416459
>http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=458340801
>http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457922334
>http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=457214787
>http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=456896004
>http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=454822137
>
How can you explain what you don't understand?
OrlandoFlorida
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:43:57 -0500, "OrlandoFlorida" <flo...@iag.net>
>wrote:
>
>>cz...@ecn.ab.ca wrote in message <36f90...@ecn.ab.ca>...
>>>OrlandoFlorida (flo...@iag.net) wrote:
>>>
>>>: Evolution to be true, the world must be millions of years
>>>: old. There are even some scientists who claim that the
>>>: world is 10 million years old.
>>>
>>>
>>>And by "scientist", I refer to one who follows proper scientific
>>>procedures as regards to formulating hypothesis, testing theories, and
>>>arriving at conclusions. Scientific inquiry is a process, and if not
>>>followed, then what results is not science.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I agree. In fact, let's add an additional description to the definition
>>of a scientist. A scientist should be the first to acknowledge that he
>>or she does not know everything and will not insist on presenting
>>his or her theory as a "fact" unless it can be proved. If you think that
>>I am a "cretinist" for thinking this, then I must cast doubt on _your_
>>scientific methodology.
>
>Are you a commie?
No, are you?
>Free enterprise will never buy your cult belief.
My beliefs, unlike yours perhaps, are not for sale.
You still have not addressed the issue under discussion. If you
did that, we could quickly end our discussion.