Difference between religion and science fora

Truthfully I didn't think about it, I merely use it in a common-sense rather than set-in-concrete mathematical sense. But I'm smart enough to know that nothing in science is ABOLUTELY proved, and that especially as it has developed over the last century, so much happened scientifically that called previous formulations into question -- Newton for instance -- that although the old theories continue to be used because they are practical, and correct within their practical spheres, they must be regarded as only relatively correct because of later science. So I think you were imputing to me some concrete definition of the term I don't in fact share.

None of which meanings of the term I have violated, to judge from a cursory reading.

IN fact Jar goes on to state that Evolution is as good as proven.

The evidence for evolution is a FACT. The Evolution happened is still tentative but so well supported that it is as close to being proved as anything known. The Theory of Evolution is held tentatively but it is the best explanation available. However it is possibly the best supported theory in science.

I'll second the nomination, if it will shut you guys up about biased moderation.You certainly spend enough time here to be a moderator. It would be nice to see you put that time to constructive use. As one who has clashed with you on several occasions, I have no fear.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Thank you very much for saying I'm making effective arguments.I think probably it's not that anyone else has recognized that fact, exactly, though I personally think the arguments are clear enough that they should raise some questions in people's minds. I would suspect that if they do raise such questions that instead of their opening up to the possibility and considering it fairly, what happens is that their faith in evolution tells them it is simply impossible for me to be right about anything, especially since I haven't played by the scientific rules, so they simply refuse to consider it further and go on to pull rank and denounce me for every offense to science and reason they can think of. (Either that or they aren't as bright as they think they are, 'cause what I've said ain't rocket science but nobody has as yet said one word to suggest that they even GET what I've said).This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 01:26 PM

What evidence? Here is some evidence I was taught that was supposedly a fact.1. Neaderthal was ape-like and not at the level of modern humans, the impression is that he could not, for instance, have mated with people.2. Cro-Magnon man was a missing link. Actually, I don't see any bioligical differences between Cro-Magnon and us except that Cro-Magnons were typically taller.3. Haeckel's drawings.4. the phylotypic stage in embryos5. fish gills in human embryos6. Fossils documenting evolution which was the very gradual change from one species to another (false impression since fossil record does not show that)7. Micro-evolution proves ToEWhich of these are factual and logical evidence?Are Haeckel's drawings "facts"? They were presented as facts.Are human gill slits "facts"? They were presented as facts.Looks like a sham to me.

Well so far in other threads you have not been able to convice folk that any of those things were ever taught as facts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh now THAT is a weasely evasive answer if ever there was one. I haven't been following the other thread except sporadically but it's absurd if people are actually denying that these things were ever taught. I personally was taught the first six, in Freshman Physical Anthropology at UCLA most likely, in which the basic text was Gaylord Simpson's book, title of which I've forgotten, as well as constantly encountering the same dogmas in my own reading later on, and #7 is dogma being taught now, right on this very forum.My my Jar, I believe you are being stupendously disingenuous here. If they ARE denying that these things were taught, so are they, but you should know better than to hide behind such a big fat lie. it's such common knowledge that to deny it is, well, underhanded. And you didn't answer Randman's question. WHAT evidence?????This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 02:23 PM

Well, let's look at them.I must admit that my education was some time ago, but I can say that those were not actually what I was taught. In addition, they are for the most part just nonsense statements. What does that statement mean? I was taught that Neaderthal lived in communities, likely had fire, made tools, seemed to have some belief structure, took care of injured members of the community. The question of mating was open and unresolved.So the only reasonable conclusion is that randman is simply talking nonsense. Again, that was simply not what I was taught. In fact, I cannot remember the question of a missing link even coming up except as a joke. The second sentence is simply randman stating that he is incredulous. Hardly evidence. A whole thread has been devoted to that issue. Again, a mistatement. There are many examples of fossils that show gradual change. One good example is the changes in shellfish over time. There are also examples of rapid change. There is no reason that both cannot happen simultaneously. IMHO, kinda. It is certainly one of the things that support the TOE but as you have been told, there is a difference between the TOE and evolution. Science also hold tentativity as a basic tenet. That makes his assertion only yet another of his many unsupported and incorrect assertions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I completely disagree. A primary condition for being a board moderator should be the ability to moderate oneself. His entire posting style consists of either snide retorts or are constructed in the following format:1. Insert something vaguely on topic.
2. Insist that because of Haeckel all evolutionists are frauds.
3. Victoriously conclude that evolution is defeated.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

If you were invited to be a moderator, do you think you would be able to tell when someone grasped every oportunity to revisit his favorite topic, no matter what the thread? What do you think should be done with such a person? Of course, this is off-topic and mentioned only rhetorically.Some on the science side feel uncomfortable applying the principle of tentativity to facts, but as facts are gathered by fallible humans there is really no other choice. For example, professor Blondlot believed N-Rays a fact because he had observed their effects projected upon a screen, as had others. Percival Lowell and others believed the canals of Mars a fact because they had observed them through telescopes. If we ever find the Higgs Boson it will be through probabilistic analyses of the results of millions of high-energy particle collisions and not because we ever actually saw one. Even facts go through levels of tentativity.Faith raises a good point when she asks for assessments of the degree of tentativity, but they would likely have the reliability of movie ratings. There's no substitute for the hard work of slogging through the evidence and forming one's own opinion. But if she's interested in the opinion of scientists, because of evolution's unparalleled success in explaining and interpreting the diversity of life, the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence, and because of the absence of evidence that doesn't fit the evolutionary framework, there are few that would give the supposed fact of evolution any chance of ever being falsified.--Percy

What a laugh, Percy. Unparalleled success in explaining. Sure, with imaginative scenarios that ignore everything that contradicts them. The "Depositional environments" idea doesn't account for the actual evidence as I just wrote Arkansas Banana Boy on the Reasons for Rejecting ToE thread, but it sticks despite its absolute absurdity precisely becasue it CANNOT be falsified as it is nothing but an imaginative scenario, however bad, and because so much is invested in this stuff by scientists. That's geology not the ToE of course. But it's the same thing there. You can make the scenario "account" for the data because there is NO way to test it, to falsify it. Why isn't this obvious? It's all a big STORY wrapped around selected data, data which is just as well explained a number of other ways. Everything that supposedly proved descent for instance is JUST as well accounted for by DESIGN instead. JUST AS WELL. A fleet of cars of different makes, models, sizes, colors, engine power etc., but still all cars because of their BASIC DESIGN similarities, and not descended from one another. There's LOTS of evidence that doesn't fit the evo framework but it is made to fit by one sort of rationalization or another. No transitionals? Oh but ALL are transitional. Well they don't LOOK like it, they look like separate groupings. Oh well but everything is a transitional and we'll just define our terms to say so and then you can't dispute it. No gradations? Oh but obviously there were great sudden leaps to explain it, punctuated equilibria. Well obviously that was the case because there's the reptile down there and the bird up there and we KNOW they are related by descent because of the order of their appearance in the column so obviously things just kind of plateaued and then jumped. Yeah, hundreds of times. No evidence, but the thinnest possible plausibility. And genetics shows only similar design between orders and phyla too, just as well explained by design as by descent. JUST AS WELL. But descent is popular despite the absolute lack of proof. Sigh.

This is off topic. Please, no replies. --AdminStep 1. Paint a picture of your opponents argument with as much derogation and as little support as possible. Step 2. Mainstream scientists should always be referred to with distain as some kind of empty, fairy tale inventing, crackpots who not only are unable to see contradictory evidence, but are all either consciously or subconsciously involved in some kind secular indoctrination. Step 3. Create a philosophical argument to allow nonsense to enter the discussion. Scientific theories are just fairy tales for which many different alternate explanations can be made. Step 4. Now is the time to shine! Describe your personal layman interpretation and associate it on an equal level with the rigorous study of thousands of the world’s greatest minds across the centuries. Step 5. Make a completely inappropriate analogy. This is a good time to do it to cover up for the blatant insult you just delivered to world renowned professionals throughout the ages. In particular, equating man made mechanical things to life is effective against the evilutionists because they can be shown to be subtly the same despite the fact that mechanical things do not reproduce. Mousetrap and motorcycles should be avoided. Try to think of something original! Step 6. You must make the opposition idea seem obviously inferior due to inherent flaws. Do not be bothered trying to enumerate flaws just simply acknowledge they exist. Getting into a discussion about the DETAILS of a flaw is not recommended as you will be putting your opponent in a position to make a rational argument against you. Step 7. Historical scientific progress is ALWAYS a weakness. Were they not smart enough to get it right the first time? Why are scientists always disagreeing on things and changing their "theories"? The Bible never changes and since the Origin of Species is the Bible to evilutionists, any attack upon the original framework of evolution is a valid blow to modern synthesis. Step 8. No matter what happens they always have no evidence for their position. It is irregardless how much time, if any, you have spent actually looking to see if they really do have evidence. Even if they have just presented you with evidence, simply wait until you think they have forgotten and state once again that they have no evidence. Attempts to further politely show you the evidence should always be met with accusations of no evidence. Step 9. Whenever given the opportunity, always casually dismiss fields of inquiry that are too complicated or require too much effort to understand. This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-01-2005 01:55 PMThis message has been edited by Admin, 08-01-2005 04:40 PM

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

After posting my most recent reply Message 59, I felt that my motivation behind it with regards to the topic of this thread should be explained.I read the post many times and I felt that I really needed to respond to it. The more I looked at it the more I simply could not find one rational, discrete thought for which I could even begin to construct a response. That led me to start thinking what about the structure of the post was so difficult to address. Then it came to me, it was all nonsense and it is very difficult to reply to nonsense. In particular, it was a buffet of nonsense consisting of small pieces of larger nonsense from various other places in the forum. How would one even begin to address each one of the items listed without having to go into a lengthy discussion involving background and recent developments for each part only to then have it casually dismissed later as so many have done before.That is why I constructed my reply as I did. Simply breaking the nonsense down and calling it like it is.With regards to the whole seperation of fora. I feel that the new fora are primarily being used to house these nonsense discussion about topics that should legitimatly be in the science fora. What is the good of talking about sedimentation in a particular thread if they only defense needed to support your position is akin to, "It is inconcievable that sediments would sort themselves out in neat layers over MILLIONS Of years!" At that point you are not having a discussion with someone, you are simply putting out a rebuttal hoping that someone else on the board or a lurker will appreciate it. The entire point of the debate has been reduced from an intellectual engagement of an opponent to a nonsense juggling fiasco.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-01-2005 02:18 PM

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)