Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   to Christians in this forum...
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 121 of 197 (100372)
04-16-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by pinky
04-12-2004 3:00 PM


Re: don't peep at the spy in my pie
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will) but at the dawn of our modern science era (approx 200 years ago) didn't most scientists believe in creation? Wasn't it after Darwin's 'origin of species' that an alternative to creation started to permeate the scientific community? When Darwinism first made it's appearance didn't it take some time to pick up momentum and support in the feild of science?
The idea of common descent of species had actually been around for a while before Darwin, actually. Darwin did compile a huge collection of evidence for common descent that no one else had done before, as well.
It was his idea of natural selection that was the next leap in our understanding.
quote:
In my very unprofessional opinion I don't think science is at such odds with the Bible as what may be promoted by some.
Science (Geology, Biology, Genetics, Cosmology, etc) is very much at odds with a literal reading of the Bible, particularly Genesis.
quote:
Scientists who hold an atheistic world view (which seems to be the majority) are biased agianst the notion of an intelligent designer/creator and I would expect that their evidence would bend to fit this world view. Just as an athiest would expect a Bible believing scientist to bend their evidence to support thier beliefs.
I don't think you really understand how science is done.
Evidence, first of all, is the facts found in nature. Scientists take into account all of the facts and formulate hypotheses and theories to explain why the facts appear as they do.
Science as a process just wouldn't work if scientists were slanting things and ignoring certain evidence in order to satisfy their own personal philosophical views. Happily, the scientific method, when correctly followed, corrects for personal bias through peer review and replication of research by other scientists.
The problem with so-called Creation 'scientists' is that they start with the conclusion they dictate must be true before they ever get to looking at any facts.
quote:
As a Christian I am skeptical of so called evidence being touted by a predominatly athiest community because I think they are overlooking/ignoring a very important aspect of our human existence, which is spirituality.
Science ignores the supernatural because it isn't able to address it. Science provides naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.
quote:
Science is not complete and without error, theories are continuously being expanded upon and some outright rejected as new discoveries are made.
Correct.
quote:
There are some things that science simply can't explain, such as aspects of the supernatural, so this realm is mostly ignored by modern science.
Well, right, but then why do you criticize science above for ignoring what it is not able to explain?
quote:
I don't think they are looking at the whole picture and leaving a vaccum that is being filled by bogus science like ufology and the ilk.
Again, why do you fault science for not explaining what it is not able to explain.
It's like faulting a man for not knowing what childbirth feels like.
("Could you be more specific? Can you produce any specific evidence to support your claim that some scientists are not interested in firguring out naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena but in "social engineering"?")
quote:
In regard to the fraternal aspect that I spoke of, have you ever heard of the Freemasons?
ROTFLMAO!!!!
I laughed out loud when I read this.
You aren't actually serious, are you?
quote:
Perhaps the most powerful fraternal network on the planet, and social engineering is definately their forte. Darwin was said to have been a Mason. This in itself is a vast subject that deserves it's own thread. Give me some time and I will see what I can put together.
What I'd like is some evidence that shows that scientists are not, in fact, spending their time doing science, but are plotting to design the next master race or whatever kooky designs you think they have.
Is your life really boring or something?
("Let's say you work for NASA, and you and your team are supposed to design the next generation space craft.
Can you show me how the wisdom of god and the bible will help you with your design?")
quote:
LOL, I don't think NASA would be the best example to use.
Why not? You said that you trust God's word over man's word.
I'm just trying to determine if you think that Physics and Jet Propulsion texts would be less useful to you than the Bible if you were an aerospace engineer working on a new spacecraft.
What part of the Bible would be most useful to you?
quote:
Prior to becoming Christian I used to dabble in occultism, it was from this background that I came to realize the OBSESSION that the 'elites' have with the occult. NASA is a very occult/masonic organization.
You'd think, if what you say is true, that with all of the power the Freemasons have at the highest levels of society, NASA wouldn't be looking at funding cuts, wouldn't you?
quote:
I'll include more information about this in the follow up thread that I already mentioned in regard to the freemasons.
Oh, great, more paranoid conspiracy theories.
I'm not really interested in cloaks and daggers.
I'm interested in discussing specific scientific evidence. I do hope you are not then going to handwave it all way by claiming conspiracies around every shadowy corner.
(" Do you reject the idea of vaccinations?")
quote:
Given the fact that vaccinations are a product of the pharmecuetical complex,
Which has done much good in the world, like developing drugs to combat many fatal diseases and other conditions that you and I take for granted that we will not die from today...
quote:
and after reading what is actually in them, I would say yes I do reject the idea of vaccinations.
Killed or weakened bacteria or viruses are what is in vaccines. That's what we come into contact with every day anyway, a vaccine just delivers a controlled dose in order to cause our bodies to produce antibodies to that particular pathogen before we come into contact with a virulent, live version of the pathogen which might make us sick.
quote:
I think they are a trojan horse that essentially compromises our natural immune system and could POSSIBLY be related to our modern cancers.
Evidence from reliable, scientific sources, please. Your website was one huge paranoid rant with a lot of out of context quotes.
quote:
Schrafinator you certainly asked alot of questions in one post,
That's because you made a lot of unsupported factual assertions in one post.
quote:
questions that require many posts to fully explain a persons position, also questions that I can forsee resulting in a never ending debate of which neither of us are likely to change our beliefs.
I am always open to changing my beliefs as long as the information is based upon verifiable, empirical evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by pinky, posted 04-12-2004 3:00 PM pinky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2004 11:09 AM nator has not replied
 Message 125 by pinky, posted 04-16-2004 2:56 PM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 122 of 197 (100374)
04-16-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by desdamona
04-14-2004 3:32 AM


Re: Bless you Pinky!!!
quote:
Pinky,I didn't notice a change in the room,but I wasn't aware of me actually being out of my body until I was pretty high up already.It took all my will to get back down.Something was trying to steal my will.
Des, you were most likely having a sleep hallucination. They are fairly common and are a form of lucid dreaming. Sometimes our brains remain in a dream state by mistake when our bodies are awake, so what is happening in our dream seems to be what is actually happening in reality.
You can read more about them here:
http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/ube.html#floating

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by desdamona, posted 04-14-2004 3:32 AM desdamona has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 123 of 197 (100380)
04-16-2004 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by nator
04-16-2004 10:44 AM


Re: don't peep at the spy in my pie
I can't find any respectable sources stating that Darwin was a Freemason - and the Freemasons themselves would probably publicise it if it were true. I did find such an article naming Charles' grandfather Erasmus Darwin as a Freemason - but although Charles Darwin was mentioned there was no suggestion that he was also a Freemason.
http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/issue9-eye.shtml
Moreover most forms of Freemasonry require members to be theists (in the wide sense, including deists). An agnostic like Darwin is unlikely to have been admitted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 04-16-2004 10:44 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 124 of 197 (100381)
04-16-2004 11:17 AM


My husband (Zhimbo) has had floating out of body experiences at least a half dozen times.
I had a strange half-awake experience where I was walking around our apartment looking for Zhimbo after waking up in the middle of the night and noticing that he wasn't in bed with me. The funny thing was, I didn't notice that he was on the floor in the living room, asleep on his papers. I only fully woke up when I nudged him awake and started to ask him if I knew where Zhimbo was.

pinky
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 197 (100414)
04-16-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by nator
04-16-2004 10:44 AM


Re: don't peep at the spy in my pie
Darwin did compile a huge collection of evidence
'...a huge collection of evidence'?? Really, or was it more like a huge collection of 'theories'?
Charles Darwin: "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." (from a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in _Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation_, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)
"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters)
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties")
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (Charles Darwin)
Science (Geology, Biology, Genetics, Cosmology, etc) is very much at odds with a literal reading of the Bible, particularly Genesis.
H. Lipson, physicist: "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.... To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all... I know that [considering creation theory] is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." ("A Physicist Looks at Evolution", _Physics Bulletin_, 1980, p.138)
Art Battson, professor, University of CA - Berkley: "We must bear in mind that just because neo-Darwinian evolution is the most plausible naturalistic explanation of origins, we should not assume that it is necessarily true.... In retrospect, it seems as though Darwinists have been less concerned with the scientific question of accurately explaining the empirical data of natural history, and more concerned with the religious or philosophical question of explaining the design found in nature without a designer. Darwin's general theory of evolution may, in the final analysis, be little more than an unwarranted extrapolation from microevolution based more upon philosophy than fact. The problem is that Darwinism continues to distort natural science." ("Facts, Fossils, and Philosophy", 17 May 1997)
G.A. Kerkut, biochemistry professor at the University of Southampton: "The philosophy of evolution is based upon assumptions that cannot be scientifically verified... Whatever evidence can be assembled for evolution is both limited and circumstantial in nature." (cited in _Biology_, Keith Graham et al, p.363)
Arthur Keith: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." (cited in _Origins?_, BG Ranganathan, p.22)
Francis Crick, Nobel Prize recipient for discovery of DNA structure: "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts." (_Life Itself_, p.153)
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." .... "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate....It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect ...higher intelligences...even to the limit of God...such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." (Sir Fred Hoyle, well-known British mathematician, astronomer and cosmologist)
Well, right, but then why do you criticize science above for ignoring what it is not able to explain?
If it can't be explained by science does that mean that it is non existent?
ROTFLMAO!!!!
I'm happy you had a good laugh if nothing else .
http://transitofvenus.auckland.ac.nz/...ations/fmrs_aod.html
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/Writings/liberal/science.html
Here's a book you may be interested in reading:
Amazon.com
Website of Freemason Robert Lomas
"...covers Robert's latest research on the role of Freemason Sir Robert Moray in the creation of what is probably the most important scientific society in the world, the Royal Society of London."
The Royal Society
Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles Darwin) freemason and member of Royal Society
http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/issue9-eye.shtml
Jan 24, 1839 Charles Darwin elected member of Royal Society
Dr Robert A. Hatch - University of Florida
3 of Darwin's children also members of Royal Society
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/darwin/Children.html
ANCIENT SYMBOLS IN MODERN MEDICINE: BUT WHY?
"Quoted from this article: "John Robinson explains in his popular book on Freemasonry: "When Freemasonry came public in 1717 ... it appeared that the Royal Society was virtually a Masonic subsidiary, with almost every member and every founding member of the Royal Society a Freemason."[14] An article in the leading Masonic magazine, Freemasonry Today, echoes this and mentions that "many masons were also members of the Royal Society".[15] The Royal Society remains associated with British Freemasonry today."
The Insider | Ancient symbols in modern medicine: why?
National Academies of Sciences and their 'temple of science'. What's up with all the pagan/masonic symbolism?
The Main Foyer and the Great Hall (let it be noted that all Masonic Temples have a 'great hall')
"The symbol of the Royal Society of London, founded in 1660, is over the west galley;...."
http://www4.nas.edu/...(#1)
NAS Building--The Wings
"A score of industries and foundations, including Ford and Rockefeller, contributed to the Academy Centennial Building Fund, providing funds for the east wing and some support for the construction of the auditorium."
http://www4.nas.edu/...(#2)
{Shortened display form of previous 2 links, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
In regard to Prometheus represented in this 'temple of science', the following quote is from Michael Aquino of US Military Intelligence, former member of the Church of Satan and founder of the Temple of Set:
...This is Nyarlathotep, otherwise Set, otherwise Lucifer/Satan, otherwise Prometheus, otherwise Thoth, who has created the power of perspective and the independent psyche of judgment. Here "knowledge" becomes possible...."
Commentary on the Seal of the Nine Angles
Killed or weakened bacteria or viruses are what is in vaccines.
http://www.mercola.com/2001/mar/7/vaccine_ingredients.htm
What an amazing coincidence that Edward Jenner was a Freemason:
Page not found - Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania
For anyone who may be interested the following is a really good link of the subject of Freemasonry, tons and tons of info and yes it is an anti-masonic source:
Freemasonry Watch - Is the Devil in the details? | Freemasons News and Freemason Enlightenment
Yes Virginia, there are such things as conspiracies, global in scope and wicked in intent.
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not
behind the scenes." --Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli of England, in 1844.
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson
"David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and justanother day's work... In the world of David Rockefeller it's hard to tell where business ends and politics begins" . Bill Moyers
We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether
World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." -- Statement made before the
United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg
"The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise their power from behind the
scenes."-- Justice Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court.
"I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insideous forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."-- U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House.
"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls
its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation."-- Mayor (1918-1925) John F. Hylan of New York.
"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the
commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.
The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate
the four centers of power--Political, Monetary, Intellectual, and Ecclesiastical."--U.S. Senator
Barry Goldwater from his 1964 book "No Apologies"
A BIG Thank you to Brian for the info on 'quoting'.
[This message has been edited by pinky, 04-16-2004]
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by nator, posted 04-16-2004 10:44 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2004 3:08 PM pinky has replied
 Message 131 by Quetzal, posted 04-16-2004 4:23 PM pinky has not replied
 Message 134 by nator, posted 04-16-2004 5:53 PM pinky has replied
 Message 136 by nator, posted 04-16-2004 6:00 PM pinky has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 126 of 197 (100416)
04-16-2004 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by pinky
04-16-2004 2:56 PM


Re: don't peep at the spy in my pie
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties")
Run for your lives! The Darwin Eye Quote is coming back!!
(for the 1472nd time.....)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by pinky, posted 04-16-2004 2:56 PM pinky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by pinky, posted 04-16-2004 3:42 PM Coragyps has replied
 Message 133 by TechnoCore, posted 04-16-2004 5:34 PM Coragyps has not replied

pinky
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 197 (100421)
04-16-2004 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Coragyps
04-16-2004 3:08 PM


Re: don't peep at the spy in my pie
Run for your lives! The Darwin Eye Quote is coming back!!
Just trying to make the point that Darwin didn't seem entirely confident in his 'huge collection of evidence'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2004 3:08 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Asgara, posted 04-16-2004 3:56 PM pinky has not replied
 Message 129 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2004 4:09 PM pinky has not replied
 Message 130 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2004 4:09 PM pinky has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 128 of 197 (100422)
04-16-2004 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by pinky
04-16-2004 3:42 PM


Darwin's Infamous Eye Quote
Pinky,
Have you actually read "On the Origins of Species.."?
If not, where did you get the eye quote? What site?

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by pinky, posted 04-16-2004 3:42 PM pinky has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 129 of 197 (100423)
04-16-2004 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by pinky
04-16-2004 3:42 PM


Re: don't peep at the spy in my pie
That quote is the intro to a paragraph - a rhetorical device.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by pinky, posted 04-16-2004 3:42 PM pinky has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 130 of 197 (100424)
04-16-2004 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by pinky
04-16-2004 3:42 PM


Re: don't peep at the spy in my pie
Sorry Pinky, you have been mislead. I'll leave the details to someone else.
This is an example of one of a number (a large number) of creationist assertions that fall somewhere between misleading and thorougly dishonest.
added by edit
Ah, I see Cory has pointed you in the right direction. I hope this and a couple more will help you understand that you may be relying on liars for your information.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-16-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by pinky, posted 04-16-2004 3:42 PM pinky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by pinky, posted 04-16-2004 5:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 131 of 197 (100429)
04-16-2004 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by pinky
04-16-2004 2:56 PM


Darwin quotes
Hi Pinky,
I don't want to rain on your parade, but I already addressed two of your quotes with desdamona in this post (click). You might want to reconsider the reliability of the source you took them from - since both are pretty much complete fabrications. Just a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by pinky, posted 04-16-2004 2:56 PM pinky has not replied

compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 132 of 197 (100434)
04-16-2004 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by coffee_addict
04-15-2004 5:16 PM


Lam writes:
Actually, it's somewhat common now for me.
Rather you than me. I only had it a few times. The incidend I described scared me enough that after that night I never again used drugs (except drink and smokes).

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by coffee_addict, posted 04-15-2004 5:16 PM coffee_addict has not replied

TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 197 (100444)
04-16-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Coragyps
04-16-2004 3:08 PM


Re: don't peep at the spy in my pie
"Run for your lives! The Darwin Eye Quote is coming back!!
(for the 1472nd time.....)"
ROTFLMAO
Actually I was thinking it would be nice to keep track on the number of time this faulty argument has been used. And maybe the percentage of the new creos that has used this argument.
So that each time this argument comes up again... (every day), they could be presentated with a nice spread-sheet over all other times it has happend. Just kidding
Bubble people. Living your life in a bubble. da da da...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Coragyps, posted 04-16-2004 3:08 PM Coragyps has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 134 of 197 (100449)
04-16-2004 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by pinky
04-16-2004 2:56 PM


Re: don't peep at the spy in my pie
quote:
'...a huge collection of evidence'?? Really, or was it more like a huge collection of 'theories'?
Again, your use of terminology shows that you don't really understand what you are criticizing.
If Darwin had actually developed a "huge collection of theories", defining "theory" the way scientists do, then we would be talking about an even more enormous contribution to science.
The following is an excellent explanation of this whole issue written by one of the most important Biologists of the 20th century, S.J. Gould:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by pinky, posted 04-16-2004 2:56 PM pinky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by pinky, posted 04-16-2004 6:35 PM nator has not replied
 Message 152 by pinky, posted 04-18-2004 10:13 PM nator has replied

pinky
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 197 (100450)
04-16-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by NosyNed
04-16-2004 4:09 PM


Re: don't peep at the spy in my pie
I hope this and a couple more will help you understand that you may be relying on liars for your information.
I will concede that it wasn't the full context of the quote after reading the link that Coragyps provided. If you mean a liar in the context of omitting the rest to the quote I will give you that.
Full quote, in proper context:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people ], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
My apologies, it wasn't my intent to be deceptive in any way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2004 4:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024