Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8972 total)
186 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (4 members, 182 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,399 Year: 7,147/23,288 Month: 1,053/1,214 Week: 65/303 Day: 26/39 Hour: 2/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   scientific theories taught as factual
ICANT
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 211 of 295 (447745)
01-10-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by DrJones*
01-10-2008 4:54 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Hi Jones,

DrJones writes:

And your evidence for this claim is?

We don't have to look to cryogenics to see examples of deep-frozen mammals; nature has already beaten us to it. In the summer of 1977, a perfectly-preserved specimen of a six-month-old baby mammoth was disinterred by a bulldozer from permafrost in the Yakutsk Republic of the former USSR. This baby mammoth, nicknamed Dinah, is over ten thousand years old. In 1900, a larger Russian mammoth was found in Berezovka standing upright in the Arctic permafrost. The frozen beast was so perfectly preserved by the sub-zero temperatures that the ancient buttercups it had been eating when it died were still stuck to its tongue. No reason has ever been given to explain why the mammoth died so suddenly it never had a chance to swallow the flowers, but the beast seems to have been literally frozen in its tracks.
http://members.fortunecity.com/slemen/frozen.html

Some scientist want to bring back the wooly mammoth by using sperm from the frozen animals.

It isn't exactly Jurassic Park, but Japanese researchers are looking at the possibility of using sperm from frozen animals to inseminate living relatives.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14353511/?GT1=8404

Have fun,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by DrJones*, posted 01-10-2008 4:54 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by DrJones*, posted 01-10-2008 6:04 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 216 by NosyNed, posted 01-10-2008 6:13 PM ICANT has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 212 of 295 (447748)
01-10-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by DrJones*
01-10-2008 4:55 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Hi DrJones,

Adn your evidence for this claim is?

I found these pictures here. If you want to prove they don't exist have at it.

http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html

Have fun,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by DrJones*, posted 01-10-2008 4:55 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by DrJones*, posted 01-10-2008 6:09 PM ICANT has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2096
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 213 of 295 (447751)
01-10-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by ICANT
01-10-2008 5:36 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
http://members.fortunecity.com/slemen/frozen.html

Speculation from an amateur webpage about cyrogenics is harly evidence that mammoths were frozen instantly by the ice age. Got anything from a scientific journal?


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 5:36 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2008 12:04 PM DrJones* has responded

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 4415 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 214 of 295 (447753)
01-10-2008 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by ICANT
01-10-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
ICANT

They did cease to be chemicals when they became single cell life forms didn't they.

No.
The physics of electromagnetism give rise to the elements and the chemical interactions of the biology that makes up cellular life and the operations within those cells are all chemistry in action.

From simple elements of carbon,hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen,are the constituents of cellular biology made. From these constituents are the various capabilities of life fundamentally derived.

ABE Check out this video and see how much we have learned about the workings of the cell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdkI2wb4AlM

Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.


"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."

Albert Einstein


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 4:27 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2008 1:08 PM sidelined has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2096
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 215 of 295 (447754)
01-10-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by ICANT
01-10-2008 5:44 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
If you want to prove they don't exist have at it.

The pictures show different reconstructions of Lucy's skeleton, what's the evidence that these are different bones?

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 5:44 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2008 1:16 PM DrJones* has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8930
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 216 of 295 (447758)
01-10-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by ICANT
01-10-2008 5:36 PM


something else wrong
Those whom you are quoting are wrong. I think you have a nearly perfect record of having nothing right in any of your posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 5:36 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 6:22 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 217 of 295 (447759)
01-10-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by NosyNed
01-10-2008 5:32 PM


Re: Your statements
Ned,

Yes it is wrong. In fact I don't recall you making one single post about the evolutionary model that isn't wrong.

I am going to clarify what I have been saying and see if you can comprehend it.

A long time ago there was no life.
A single cell life form appeared. Maybe more than one.
These life forms did whatever they did for 3.1 billion years when.
A multicellure life form appeared.
Over the next 700 million years these multicellure (one or more) life forms gave birth to all the life forms we see today through a process of natural selection and survival of the fittest events.

Would you please point out where I went wrong in stating what I think evolution is to what you say it is.

These are RAZD's definition of Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution leaving out the word evolution to appease creationist.

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

Ned I really think that is what I am saying in the above statements.

Have fun,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by NosyNed, posted 01-10-2008 5:32 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by sidelined, posted 01-10-2008 7:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 220 by NosyNed, posted 01-10-2008 7:24 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2008 9:18 PM ICANT has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 218 of 295 (447762)
01-10-2008 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by NosyNed
01-10-2008 6:13 PM


Re: something else wrong
Ned,

Those whom you are quoting are wrong.

Would you like to present evidence to prove such a charge.

I think you have a nearly perfect record of having nothing right in any of your posts.

BTW I always did like to bat a 1,000

Have fun,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by NosyNed, posted 01-10-2008 6:13 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 4415 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 219 of 295 (447779)
01-10-2008 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
01-10-2008 6:13 PM


Re: Your statements
ICANT

A single cell life form appeared. Maybe more than one.
These life forms did whatever they did for 3.1 billion years when.
A multicellure life form appeared.

Actually there is thought to have been an intermediate stage wherein single celled bacteria would colonize and thereby gain an advantage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 6:13 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8930
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 220 of 295 (447784)
01-10-2008 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
01-10-2008 6:13 PM


still batting 1,000
Would you please point out where I went wrong in stating what I think evolution is to what you say it is.

There is nothing wrong with the statements except they are about the natural history of the planet and not anything about the evolutionary model. :) lol

You still haven't a clue. :)

Sorry, ICANT, I won't waste your time or mine by continuing a conversation when I am unwilling to give you the step by step education you need. Others here seem to be more willing to try.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 6:13 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 221 of 295 (447802)
01-10-2008 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
01-10-2008 6:13 PM


Re: Your statements
These life forms did whatever they did for 3.1 billion years when.
A multicellure life form appeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria

quote:
Stromatolites, putative fossilized cyanobacteria, have been found from 3.8 billion years ago. The ability of cyanobacteria to perform oxygenic photosynthesis is thought to have converted the early reducing atmosphere into an oxidizing one, which dramatically changed the life forms on Earth and provoked an explosion of biodiversity. Chloroplasts in plants and algae have evolved from cyanobacteria.

Click to enlarge

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Anabaena_sperica.jpeg

There were colonies of bacteria long before the multicellular life evolved. What is the difference between a colony and a multicellular life?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponges

quote:
The sponges or poriferans (from Latin porus "pore" and ferre "to bear") are animals of the phylum Porifera. Porifera translates to "Pore-bearer". They are primitive, sessile, mostly marine, water dwelling, filter feeders that pump water through their bodies to filter out particles of food matter. Sponges represent the simplest of animals. With no true tissues (parazoa), they lack muscles, nerves, and internal organs. Their similarity to colonial choanoflagellates shows the probable evolutionary jump from unicellular to multicellular organisms. There are over 5,000 modern species of sponges known, and they can be found attached to surfaces anywhere from the intertidal zone to as deep as 8,500 m (29,000 feet) or further. Though the fossil record of sponges dates back to the Neoproterozoic Era, new species are still commonly discovered.

There are several kinds of sponges that you can run through a screen to make them break up into small bits, and they will reassemble into a sponge afterwards.

In other words we see fossil evidence and evidence from life today of intermediate forms.

Over the next 700 million years these multicellure (one or more) life forms gave birth to all the life forms we see today through a process of natural selection and survival of the fittest events.

Survival of the barely able to survive is also natural selection -- it is not just the "fittest" that survive and breed. The working definition of "fit" is "being able to survive and breed."

These are RAZD's definition of Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution leaving out the word evolution to appease creationist.

Not really - I don't assign them to micro or macro, and "macro" generally refers to (continued) evolution after speciation, so speciation is just the boundary of "micro" and "macro" levels.

What "macro" actually is - in evolutionary biology - is just the diversification of life from common ancestors. This happens by evolution within species as well as by further speciation.

Now back to your regular program of (mis)information (and trolling).

Enjoy.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 6:13 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 11:05 PM RAZD has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5494
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 222 of 295 (447805)
01-10-2008 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by ICANT
01-10-2008 3:28 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Lucy that I talked about the last couple of days has 8 different skeletons and none of them the same. All of which are claimed to be exact copies of the 40% skeleton that is locked away.

But she isn't "locked away." I saw her - the realio, trulio fossil bones - in Houston last month. And there is only the one australopithecine that was named "Lucy."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 3:28 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 11:49 PM Coragyps has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 223 of 295 (447812)
01-10-2008 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by RAZD
01-10-2008 9:18 PM


Re: Your statements
Hi RAZD,

What is the difference between a colony and a multicellular life?

Sounds stupit but I will play along.

A single cell=an organism composed of a single cell.

A colony of single cell bacteria=a bunch of organisms that are composed of a single cell.

A multicellular organism=an organism composed of 2 or more cells that have divided and compose one organism.

I hope that was not a trick question and I got it right.

Not really - I don't assign them to micro or macro, and "macro" generally refers to (continued) evolution after speciation, so speciation is just the boundary of "micro" and "macro" levels.

Now back to your regular program of (mis)information (and trolling).

Ok I will get back to my (mis)information as you put it.

The following is a message you posted in message 89 of Evolution and the big lie.

Thanks Percy, but I'm not really interested in another thread about what the definition is, rather I want to explore what we can deduce about biological life based on basic processes and observed mechanisms. People who want to discuss the definition can go to "the definition of evolution" thread (it is still open).
Using neutral language we can say that:

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

This process can be measured and documented, it can be observed in all living species and thus is an observed fact, part of the evidence of objective reality.

There are several mechanisms that cause this process to occur, and these include

  • genetic mutation,
    • insertions\deletions during replication
    • point mutations,
    • etc.
  • epigenetic effects on the development of phenotypes,
    • nutrition effects,
    • chemical effects,
    • climate effects,
    • etc.
  • various selection processes,
    • sexual selection,
    • ecological selection,
    • intentional selection,
    • survival selection,
    • etc.
  • neutral trait drift,
    • etc.
  • etc.
Each of these mechanisms can be tested and observed in various species at various times, but it should be noted that several don't need to be continual mechanisms. Nor is their any "hierarchy" in action of the mechanisms and their relative importance can change (neutral trait drift could be more important during static than rapid periods of change, for instance).

It would be interesting to list all the mechanisms that are involved, but this would be a good topic on it's own, if not needing a thread topic on each mechanism, as we see continued debate about the mechanism of mimicry spanning several threads. It's also a good topic for individual study in depth (say by taking a university course in biology ... :D).

Discussing all the different mechanisms involved in the process should not be necessary to this thread, other than to mention some in passing as necessary, and thus we should be able to start with the most basic process that anyone can validate with their own observations:

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Creationist say this is just "variation and adaptation within kinds," which they use to describe the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation from their hypothetical "original created kinds," with special reference to those that survived the hypothetical world flood event.

Included in the creationist model of biological change ("variation and adaptation within kinds") -- especially following the hypothetical flood event -- is speciation. The definition of species is also covered in an existing open thread - the "Definition of Species" thread - so we don't need to pursue that particular definitional\philosophical\semantic rathole here either. Going back to Message 73:

quote:
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)
quote:
... new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind," ...

'speciation' is the division of a single species into two (or more) species.

Speciation is also often seen as the division line between micro-effects and macro-effects in the study of biological life, and so we may want to look at this as another process, with an emphasis on the hereditary relationship (to ensure the creationist position of "within a kind" is included):

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

Again there are several known and observed mechanisms involved, each of which could become a new thread. Speciation occurs by:

  • allopatric mechanisms,
  • peripatric mechanisms (including "founder effect"),
  • parapatric mechanisms (including "ring species"),
  • sympatric mechanisms (including "cryptic species"),
  • artificially, through animal husbandry or
  • artificially in laboratory experiments,
  • etc.
There's a graphic that shows the four basic types of speciation at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Speciation_modes.svg

I think this is enough for discussion to proceed for now:

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

As has been demonstrated so far, this fits with creationist "variation and adaptation within kinds," and "speciation within the kind" so we should be able to agree on these processes as occurring in modern life, and that there is sufficient evidence for these processes that we can say it is a fact that they occur.

Enjoy.Actually, I am trying to discuss a process, so I have stopped using the word "evolution" to prevent everyone being confused and distracted by their pet (& often divergent) definitions.

I think this is enough for discussion to proceed for now:

Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

As has been demonstrated so far, this fits with creationist "variation and adaptation within kinds," and "speciation within the kind" so we should be able to agree on these processes as occurring in modern life, and that there is sufficient evidence for these processes that we can say it is a fact that they occur.

From message 96 same Topic.

We seem to have agreement then that we have two processes (even though they may overlap) that occur in modern everyday biological life as we know it:
Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

We observe instances of these processes happening by various mechanisms as previously noted, and thus these are facts in today's world.

The question is whether this is what has happened in the past and whether anything else was involved. To test this we will form a theory:


Theory #1:
That each species known today can be traced backwards to parent species through historical, fossil or genetic records, while only involving (1) the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and (2) the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

Stated simply: we posit that Process (1) and Process (2) are sufficient to explain the diversity of life today from the records of previous generations of species.

Since the first life form was a single cell life form you stated these processes sufficient to trace all the way there.

Have fun now,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by RAZD, posted 01-10-2008 9:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2008 8:05 AM ICANT has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 115 days)
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 224 of 295 (447813)
01-10-2008 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Coragyps
01-10-2008 9:52 PM


Re: Sudden Appearances
Hi Coragyps,
But she isn't "locked away." I saw her - the realio, trulio fossil bones - in Houston last month. And there is only the one australopithecine that was named "Lucy."

I hate to break the news to you but if you were told you was looking at the real Lucy YOU WERE LIED TOO.

Unfortunately, the "real" Lucy can't be seen in Addis Ababa. Because of the rare and fragile nature of fossils, including Lucy's skeleton, molds are usually made of the originals, which are then used to create detailed copies (casts). These detailed copies are then used for teaching, research, and exhibits in institutions around the world. This is what has been done with Lucy.

The "real" Lucy is stored in a specially constructed safe, in the Paleoanthropology Laboratories of the National Museum of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa. On display in the museum is one of the casts of the original skeleton. Visitors to the Ethiopian National Museum in Addis Ababa can see a replica skeleton laid out by itself in pieces, showing the 40 percent that was discovered.

Also on display is a fascinating reconstructed full skeleton of Lucy that shows her height and stance. When she was alive, Lucy would have been about 3-1/2 feet tall and weighed about 60 to 65 pounds.

Underlining and bolding mine

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/ethiopia/addis-ababa-lucy.htm

I always thought if something was stored in a specially design safe it was locked away.

Goes to show you how stupid I am.

Just keep believing everything you are told.

Have fun,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Coragyps, posted 01-10-2008 9:52 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2008 3:09 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 227 by Coragyps, posted 01-11-2008 9:49 AM ICANT has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 225 of 295 (447834)
01-11-2008 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by ICANT
01-10-2008 11:49 PM


lucy in the states: worth more than diamonds
I hate to break the news to you but if you were told you was looking at the real Lucy YOU WERE LIED TOO.

I always thought if something was stored in a specially design safe it was locked away.

Goes to show you how stupid I am.

Just keep believing everything you are told.

And this goes to show that guarded scepticism is always the best way to think. You wouldn't have looked so, 'stupid', had you gone with 'You've seen the real Lucy? I thought she was kept in a locked vault?' but you went with the all caps "YOU WERE LIED TOO." It makes it sounds like an authoritative fact, which is something I'm sure you'd rather science shied away from. Anyway, for your information:

quote:
Oct. 24, 2006. ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia - One of the world’s most famous fossils — the 3.2 million-year-old Lucy skeleton unearthed in Ethiopia in 1974 — will go on display abroad for the first time in the United States, officials said Tuesday.

Even the Ethiopian public has only seen Lucy twice. The Lucy exhibition at the Ethiopian Natural History Museum in the capital, Addis Ababa, is a replica while the real remains are usually locked in a vault. A team from the Houston Museum of Natural Science spent four years negotiating the U.S. tour, which will start in Houston next September.


So yes, it is entirely feasable that Coragyps has seen the real deal. I'm sure Coragyps can fill you in on the details - but I hoped I could provide a little friendly pointer: something you think is true, might be wrong. If someone tells you something that conflicts with something you thought was true - the better stance is not to assume that the person was lied to (though some thought might lead you to conclude this is the most probable outcome), but to assume that either they are not right (they were mislead, misunderstood what they were looking at) or that what you had previosly thought as true is in fact only partly true or was once thought to be true but now isn't.

With scepticism of others as well as a scepticism for the perfection of your own perceived knowledge, you can develop a healthy attitude to debate around here - at least that's my experience and I thought you might benefit from thinking about it.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2008 11:49 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2008 12:55 PM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020