Discussion:
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact
(too old to reply)
Ed Conrad
2003-10-29 12:12:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
<***@nowen.bellsouth.net> asked in talk.origins:

<SNIP>
<
> IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
>
Correct Answer:
Nether.
Actually, it's bullshit.
Since it'is accompanied by neither facts nor physical evidence.
(Unfortunately, rhetoric and wishful thinking do not count.)
>
I apologize for my brevity but I've got to catch a train
>
Ed Conrad
rick++
2003-10-31 17:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Both.

In scientific "theory" means a comprehensivce explanation.
In laymans talk it culd mean a hypothesis.
Eric Chomko
2003-11-06 22:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Ed Conrad (***@verizon.net) wrote:
: On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
: <***@nowen.bellsouth.net> asked in talk.origins:

: <SNIP>
: <
: > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: >
: Correct Answer:
: Nether.
: Actually, it's bullshit.

Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism. But creationism
has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
comes along evolution is the best one that we have.

Eric

: Since it'is accompanied by neither facts nor physical evidence.
: (Unfortunately, rhetoric and wishful thinking do not count.)
: >
: I apologize for my brevity but I've got to catch a train
: >
: Ed Conrad
Rich
2003-11-06 22:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Eric Chomko replied:
> Ed Conrad (***@verizon.net) wrote:
> : On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> : <***@nowen.bellsouth.net> asked in talk.origins:
>
> : <SNIP>
> : <
> : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : >
> : Correct Answer:
> : Nether.
> : Actually, it's bullshit.
>
> Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism.

Creationism is a theory? Always seemed to me to be an assertion.

Is it falsifyable? Is it testable?

Rich

> But creationism
> has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
> not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
> comes along evolution is the best one that we have.
>
> Eric
>
> : Since it'is accompanied by neither facts nor physical evidence.
> : (Unfortunately, rhetoric and wishful thinking do not count.)
> : >
> : I apologize for my brevity but I've got to catch a train
> : >
> : Ed Conrad
>
Jo Schaper
2003-11-07 01:14:26 UTC
Permalink
> Eric Chomko replied:
>
>> Ed Conrad (***@verizon.net) wrote:
>> : On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
>> : <***@nowen.bellsouth.net> asked in talk.origins:
>> But creationism
>> has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
>> not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
>> comes along evolution is the best one that we have.

You cannot prove or disprove creationism in the scientific sense, since
its assertions are outside the realm of science. Evolutional theory is
within the realm of science, and therefore it is subject to being
testable, therefore verifiable or falsifiable.


--
Geo Communications Services -- www.geocommunications.net
Jo Schaper's Missouri World -- http://www.missouriworld.net
William David Thweatt
2003-11-07 16:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:

: Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism. But creationism
: has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
: not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
: comes along evolution is the best one that we have.

Actually, Evolution is a scientifictheory, while Creationism is a
religious doctrine/dogma (depending upon the denomination). While
Evolution can be tested and experiments and observations can modify or
even call it into question, Creationism is as untestable as "Last
Tuesdayism." We simply cannot travel backward through time and watch
evolution or creation happen. Therefore Creationism can never be
"disproven" in the scientific sense, and Evolution is the only observable
option (other religious creation stories are included in Judeo-Christian
Creation in this argument for convenience).

Interestingly, most Creationists have no problem with what they call
"microevolution" where a species adapts to its environment. They just
don't believe in new species coming about through evolution. Since
Evolution/Creation does not have a HUGE effect on everyday life (or even
the quantum theory for that matter), I don't see why so many people make
such a big deal about it.

Belief in God and His Son and the Holy Spiritas the Divine Trinity, the
Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Death and Resurection of Jesus for our
forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life is based in faith. You don't
prove faith. You believe. The same goes with reincarnation, Mohammad,
Mosaic Law, The Dharmas, etc.

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
***@ruf.rice.edu
***@us.army.mil
Elmer Bataitis
2003-11-07 16:50:21 UTC
Permalink
William David Thweatt wrote:

> We simply cannot travel backward through time and watch
> evolution or creation happen.

Quibble time: events that leave observable evidence are investigatable
and testable. Keeping in mind that all events are historical in some
fashion.

**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************
William David Thweatt
2003-11-07 17:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Elmer Bataitis (***@frontiernet.net) wrote:
: William David Thweatt wrote:

: > We simply cannot travel backward through time and watch
: > evolution or creation happen.

: Quibble time: events that leave observable evidence are investigatable
: and testable. Keeping in mind that all events are historical in some
: fashion.

True, but the fossil record we DO have only represents a small fraction of
one percent of all the plant and animal species which have existed. That
being the case, it is an easy target for nay-sayers.

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
***@ruf.rice.edu
***@us.army.mil
mell
2003-11-28 00:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Interesting statement....however; evolution means change does it not? Thus
to not believe in the concept of evolution means one does not grasp the true
element that all things change....or maybe they do not. With either case
there is evidence to indicate life continues and genetic useful
characteristics and traits occur. Ask any albino animal in the wild (LOL)
Dave M.
"William David Thweatt" <***@rice.edu> wrote in message
news:bogk4t$bu9$***@joe.rice.edu...
> Elmer Bataitis (***@frontiernet.net) wrote:
> : William David Thweatt wrote:
>
> : > We simply cannot travel backward through time and watch
> : > evolution or creation happen.
>
> : Quibble time: events that leave observable evidence are investigatable
> : and testable. Keeping in mind that all events are historical in some
> : fashion.
>
> True, but the fossil record we DO have only represents a small fraction of
> one percent of all the plant and animal species which have existed. That
> being the case, it is an easy target for nay-sayers.
>
> --
> --
> William "Dave" Thweatt
> Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
> Chemistry Department
> Rice University
> Houston, TX
> ***@ruf.rice.edu
> ***@us.army.mil
Eric Chomko
2003-11-07 16:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Rich (***@someplace.com) wrote:


: Eric Chomko replied:
: > Ed Conrad (***@verizon.net) wrote:
: > : On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
: > : <***@nowen.bellsouth.net> asked in talk.origins:
: >
: > : <SNIP>
: > : <
: > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : >
: > : Correct Answer:
: > : Nether.
: > : Actually, it's bullshit.
: >
: > Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism.

: Creationism is a theory? Always seemed to me to be an assertion.

It was written in a book before anything that looked like modern science
came into being.

: Is it falsifyable? Is it testable?

I think it has been proven that the world did not begin begin in 4000BC.

Eric

: Rich

: > But creationism
: > has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
: > not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
: > comes along evolution is the best one that we have.
: >
: > Eric
: >
: > : Since it'is accompanied by neither facts nor physical evidence.
: > : (Unfortunately, rhetoric and wishful thinking do not count.)
: > : >
: > : I apologize for my brevity but I've got to catch a train
: > : >
: > : Ed Conrad
: >
Eric Chomko
2003-11-07 16:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Jo Schaper (***@socketdotnet) wrote:



: > Eric Chomko replied:
: >
: >> Ed Conrad (***@verizon.net) wrote:
: >> : On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
: >> : <***@nowen.bellsouth.net> asked in talk.origins:
: >> But creationism
: >> has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
: >> not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
: >> comes along evolution is the best one that we have.

: You cannot prove or disprove creationism in the scientific sense, since
: its assertions are outside the realm of science. Evolutional theory is
: within the realm of science, and therefore it is subject to being
: testable, therefore verifiable or falsifiable.

Creationism states that the world was created in 4000BC. Carbon dating
shows that the world is much older than that.

Eric

: --
: Geo Communications Services -- www.geocommunications.net
: Jo Schaper's Missouri World -- http://www.missouriworld.net
Rich
2003-11-07 19:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Eric Chomko replied:
> Rich (***@someplace.com) wrote:
>
>
> : Eric Chomko replied:
> : > Ed Conrad (***@verizon.net) wrote:
> : > : On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> : > : <***@nowen.bellsouth.net> asked in talk.origins:
> : >
> : > : <SNIP>
> : > : <
> : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> : > : >
> : > : Correct Answer:
> : > : Nether.
> : > : Actually, it's bullshit.
> : >
> : > Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism.
>
> : Creationism is a theory? Always seemed to me to be an assertion.
>
> It was written in a book before anything that looked like modern science
> came into being.

Indeed, and it was taught verbally for a long time before that, how long
is anyone's guess. It also seems to have evolved over time until writing
pinned things down.

> : Is it falsifyable? Is it testable?
>
> I think it has been proven that the world did not begin begin in 4000BC.

I don't think Rev Usher is the last word. Specifically the bible states
that god created the heavens and earth in 7 days. Ignoring the quibble of
what a day was before the earth existed, this is not testable or
falseifiyable in any way I can see. That being said you can either believe
it or not. But since you cannot prove it or disprove it, belief is your
only option.

Now the curious thing is, it is possible for both creation and evolution
to be true. One is about how the universe came into existence and the
other about how things change over time. They are in fact un-related.

Evolution does not disprove god and creation does not deny evolution.

So why the big battle? Perhaps it's because every time I get curious while
channel flipping and listen to the sermon on evolution, the preacher lies
about what evolution says. And in every discussion on the subject, the
same thing happens. This by itself makes a mockery of the supposed
religious requirement for honesty and fair dealing. But it seems to be an
article of faith, not in truth or what the Bible says however, but blind
faith in the words of the religious leaders are preachers.

OK, now I'll get off my soapbox. It's just so sad. A war is being waged
for the wrong reasons. "Gulliver's Travels" was right, those savages who
crack their eggs on the wrong side are an affront to everything right and
proper.

Rich

> Eric
>
> : Rich
>
> : > But creationism
> : > has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
> : > not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
> : > comes along evolution is the best one that we have.
> : >
> : > Eric
> : >
> : > : Since it'is accompanied by neither facts nor physical evidence.
> : > : (Unfortunately, rhetoric and wishful thinking do not count.)
> : > : >
> : > : I apologize for my brevity but I've got to catch a train
> : > : >
> : > : Ed Conrad
> : >
>
Alan McIntire
2003-11-09 00:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Ed Conrad <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> <***@nowen.bellsouth.net> asked in talk.origins:
>
> <SNIP>
> <
> > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
> >
Both!
By looking at fossils in rocks, we see that life has changed over
time, or "evolved". This is FACT.
The "theory of evolution by natural selection" is an explanation of
"why" we see this observed change in the fossil record through time.
I suppose next you'll say that Newton's theory of universal
gravitation is just a theory, and propose the construction of an
anti-gravity device.- A. McIntire
Eric Chomko
2003-11-09 04:16:09 UTC
Permalink
William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:

: : Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism. But creationism
: : has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
: : not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
: : comes along evolution is the best one that we have.

: Actually, Evolution is a scientifictheory, while Creationism is a
: religious doctrine/dogma (depending upon the denomination). While
: Evolution can be tested and experiments and observations can modify or
: even call it into question, Creationism is as untestable as "Last
: Tuesdayism." We simply cannot travel backward through time and watch
: evolution or creation happen. Therefore Creationism can never be
: "disproven" in the scientific sense, and Evolution is the only observable
: option (other religious creation stories are included in Judeo-Christian
: Creation in this argument for convenience).

: Interestingly, most Creationists have no problem with what they call
: "microevolution" where a species adapts to its environment. They just
: don't believe in new species coming about through evolution. Since
: Evolution/Creation does not have a HUGE effect on everyday life (or even
: the quantum theory for that matter), I don't see why so many people make
: such a big deal about it.


As you mention below, the big deal of it is the presence or existence of
God. Creationism mentions God specifically whereas evolution does not. Now
one can believe in God and evolution but will not believe in God in the
biblical, traditional sense.

: Belief in God and His Son and the Holy Spiritas the Divine Trinity, the
: Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Death and Resurection of Jesus for our
: forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life is based in faith. You don't
: prove faith. You believe. The same goes with reincarnation, Mohammad,
: Mosaic Law, The Dharmas, etc.

But that is the big thing of it. Faith. Many people are quite passionate
about "faith" and THAT is the big deal. Me, I'm passionate about science
and like the self correcting aspect of true science.


Eric

: --
: --
: William "Dave" Thweatt
: Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
: Chemistry Department
: Rice University
: Houston, TX
: ***@ruf.rice.edu
: ***@us.army.mil
Eric Chomko
2003-11-09 04:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Rich (***@someplace.com) wrote:


: Eric Chomko replied:
: > Rich (***@someplace.com) wrote:
: >
: >
: > : Eric Chomko replied:
: > : > Ed Conrad (***@verizon.net) wrote:
: > : > : On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
: > : > : <***@nowen.bellsouth.net> asked in talk.origins:
: > : >
: > : > : <SNIP>
: > : > : <
: > : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > : > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > : > : >
: > : > : Correct Answer:
: > : > : Nether.
: > : > : Actually, it's bullshit.
: > : >
: > : > Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism.
: >
: > : Creationism is a theory? Always seemed to me to be an assertion.
: >
: > It was written in a book before anything that looked like modern science
: > came into being.

: Indeed, and it was taught verbally for a long time before that, how long
: is anyone's guess. It also seems to have evolved over time until writing
: pinned things down.

Did you know that earlier religions before Chrsitianity had their own
version of creationism? And that Genesis as well as other parts of the Old
Testament were influenced by those earlier religions?

: > : Is it falsifyable? Is it testable?
: >
: > I think it has been proven that the world did not begin begin in 4000BC.

: I don't think Rev Usher is the last word. Specifically the bible states
: that god created the heavens and earth in 7 days. Ignoring the quibble of
: what a day was before the earth existed, this is not testable or
: falseifiyable in any way I can see. That being said you can either believe
: it or not. But since you cannot prove it or disprove it, belief is your
: only option.

Given the reference frame of science creationism cannot have occurred.

: Now the curious thing is, it is possible for both creation and evolution
: to be true. One is about how the universe came into existence and the
: other about how things change over time. They are in fact un-related.

I disagree. To accept one is to not accept the other. I believe that they
are mutually exclusive due to the aspect of time.

: Evolution does not disprove god and creation does not deny evolution.

This smacks of Orwellian (1984) "doublethink" in some manner.

: So why the big battle? Perhaps it's because every time I get curious while
: channel flipping and listen to the sermon on evolution, the preacher lies
: about what evolution says. And in every discussion on the subject, the
: same thing happens. This by itself makes a mockery of the supposed
: religious requirement for honesty and fair dealing. But it seems to be an
: article of faith, not in truth or what the Bible says however, but blind
: faith in the words of the religious leaders are preachers.

: OK, now I'll get off my soapbox. It's just so sad. A war is being waged
: for the wrong reasons. "Gulliver's Travels" was right, those savages who
: crack their eggs on the wrong side are an affront to everything right and
: proper.

: Rich

: > Eric
: >
: > : Rich
: >
: > : > But creationism
: > : > has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
: > : > not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
: > : > comes along evolution is the best one that we have.
: > : >
: > : > Eric
: > : >
: > : > : Since it'is accompanied by neither facts nor physical evidence.
: > : > : (Unfortunately, rhetoric and wishful thinking do not count.)
: > : > : >
: > : > : I apologize for my brevity but I've got to catch a train
: > : > : >
: > : > : Ed Conrad
: > : >
: >
Eric Chomko
2003-11-09 04:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Alan McIntire (***@earthlink.net) wrote:
: Ed Conrad <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
: > <***@nowen.bellsouth.net> asked in talk.origins:
: >
: > <SNIP>
: > <
: > > IS EVOLUTION A THEORY OR A FACT?
: > >
: Both!
: By looking at fossils in rocks, we see that life has changed over
: time, or "evolved". This is FACT.
: The "theory of evolution by natural selection" is an explanation of
: "why" we see this observed change in the fossil record through time.
: I suppose next you'll say that Newton's theory of universal
: gravitation is just a theory, and propose the construction of an
: anti-gravity device.- A. McIntire

Newton's theory needed Einstein's tweeks. And Einstein's theory failed to
tie all forms of energy together.

Eric
Dan Listermann
2003-11-09 04:31:48 UTC
Permalink
"Eric Chomko" <***@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
news:bokf29$15r4$***@news.ums.edu...
> William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
> : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
>
> : : Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism. But
creationism
> : : has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has
also
> : : not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better
theory
> : : comes along evolution is the best one that we have.
>
> : Actually, Evolution is a scientifictheory, while Creationism is a
> : religious doctrine/dogma (depending upon the denomination). While
> : Evolution can be tested and experiments and observations can modify or
> : even call it into question, Creationism is as untestable as "Last
> : Tuesdayism." We simply cannot travel backward through time and watch
> : evolution or creation happen. Therefore Creationism can never be
> : "disproven" in the scientific sense, and Evolution is the only
observable
> : option (other religious creation stories are included in Judeo-Christian
> : Creation in this argument for convenience).
>
> : Interestingly, most Creationists have no problem with what they call
> : "microevolution" where a species adapts to its environment. They just
> : don't believe in new species coming about through evolution. Since
> : Evolution/Creation does not have a HUGE effect on everyday life (or even
> : the quantum theory for that matter), I don't see why so many people make
> : such a big deal about it.
>
>
> As you mention below, the big deal of it is the presence or existence of
> God. Creationism mentions God specifically whereas evolution does not. Now
> one can believe in God and evolution but will not believe in God in the
> biblical, traditional sense.
>
> : Belief in God and His Son and the Holy Spiritas the Divine Trinity, the
> : Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Death and Resurection of Jesus for our
> : forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life is based in faith. You
don't
> : prove faith. You believe. The same goes with reincarnation, Mohammad,
> : Mosaic Law, The Dharmas, etc.
>
> But that is the big thing of it. Faith. Many people are quite passionate
> about "faith" and THAT is the big deal. Me, I'm passionate about science
> and like the self correcting aspect of true science.

Mark Twain said something to the effect of,"Faith is when you believe in
something you know ain't so."
Red Dragon
2003-11-09 05:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Evolution is a fact. You can see the evidence of evolution yourself in
theGrand Canyon of United States. The walls of the Canyon is a Real time
Geological Book. The Colorado River had created the Canyon Walls through
soil erosion, exposing the layers of Sedimentary Rocks, showing the
fossils in relation to the age of the rocks and subsequently the age of the
fossils themselves. You will see at the bottomest layer the same rock at the
time of the earth formation.

When we compare the various layers of rocks in the Canyon and also the
layers in other parts of the world such as in Europe and Australia, you can
deduce the History of Earth from the time of its creation to the present.
You will find that certain life were formed that later became extinct.
Among the examples are the dinosaurs, the Trilobites and the Ammonite. You
will find the bone fossils of animals only in certain age rocks and no
where else. For example you will find human bones only in very very new
soil layer merely because human came only resently on the face of the earth.
Human is the most successful of all the mamals, and mamals because
successful only because the large destructive reptiles (dinosaurs) became
extinct.

You will not find evidence of Noah's flood in the Grand Canyon and the
desert of China and Australia because Noah's flood never occured there.
According to Rev. Ussher's calculation, Noah's Flood happened in 2600 BC.
At that time, Chinese record a Glorious Reign of Emperor Fu Xi minus any
devastating natural disaster. That was why Jesuit Priest in China have to
seek help from the Pope because their Bible story did not gel with the
Chinese Historical records.

Rev Ussher calculated the Earth to be created in 4004 BC. Radioactive
dating from Uranium and later supported by Radium and Thorium all worked
out independently to be 4.5 billion years. The decent of man from
primates came about 2.5 million years ago.

If you want to know more about the Creation of the Earth, go read a
Geology Book.
If you want to go to heaven, then read the Bible. The Bible is the Manual
for Everlasting life.
It cannot be used to study Science.

Khoon.


"Eric Chomko" <***@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
news:bokfpg$15r4$***@news.ums.edu...
> Alan McIntire (***@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : Ed Conrad <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<***@4ax.com>...
> : > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Boikat"
> : > <***@nowen.bellsouth.net> asked in talk.origins:
>
Nandomark
2003-11-09 12:43:24 UTC
Permalink
That evolution occurred is a fact, but to the question of exactly how it
unfolded has a few good theories.

Incidentally, creationism is a theory, one for which there is little evidence.
Ed Conrad
2003-11-09 14:41:47 UTC
Permalink
On 09 Nov 2003 12:43:24 GMT, ***@aol.com (Nandomark) wrote:
<
>That evolution occurred is a fact, but to the question of exactly how it
>unfolded has a few good theories.
>
>Incidentally, creationism is a theory, one for which there is little evidence.
>
There also is no physical evidence for evolution -- the evolution of
man.
<
Rhetoric and wishful thinking isn't physical evidence, and, need
I remind you, close only counts in quoits.
<
So, to answer your question, evolution is only a farfetched theory
-- now disproven. It is NOT a fact and never will be.
>
>> >================================================
>>
>> THIS IS WHAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE LOOKS LIKE
>>
>> >> ===============================================
>> ><
>> Petrified Bones, Teeth and Soft Organs
>> (Some Human) Found Between Coal Veins
>> >>
>> >> ===============================================
>> >>>
>> >>> OLDEST HUMAN SKULL EVER FOUND
>> >>
>> >>> http://www.edconrad.com/images/z11calv.jpg
>> >>> http://www.edconrad.com/images/krogwskull.jpg
>> >>>
>> >>Wilton Krogman, one of the world's foremost experts
>> >>on human anatomy, holds what he had identified as
>> >>a petrified human calvarium, a skull with the eye
>> >>sockets broken off, that was discovered between
>> >>Pennsylvania's anthracite veins. He is shown at his
>> >>desk at the Cooper Clinic in Lancaster, Pa., where
>> >>moments later he beckoned a colleague -- a medical
>> >>doctor -- to examine "the oldest human skull ever
>> >>found."
>> >><
>> >>A CATscan was performed on this specimen with
>> >>favorable results.
>> >><
>> >>> http://www.edconrad.com/images/catcalv.jpg
>> >><
>> >>Meanwhile, Haversian canals were identified in the
>> >>cell structue, the tell-tale sign of bone. And dried
>> >>blood was found on the specimen during testing at
>> >>American Medical Laboratories in Chantilly, Va.
>> >><
>> >>This is the official report from AML which had
>> >>erformed Calculus Analysis by Crystallography.
>> >>The final report, dated April 21, 2000, was issued
>> >>by Dr. Nathan Sherman, director of laboratories.
>> >>
>> >>> "The specimen consists of 1 irregularly
>> >>> shaped, brown calculus weighing less
>> >>> than 0.0010 grams and measuring 1X1X0.5
>> >>> mm. No nidus is observed. The calculi
>> >>> indicates a composition of dried blood
>> >>> intermingled with a few small crystals
>> >>> resembling calcium oxalate dihydrate."
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.edconrad.com/images/z12calv.jpg
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.edconrad.com/images/z13cav.jpg
>> >>>
>> >>=============================================
>> >>>
>> >>> OTHER PETRIFIED BONES, TEETH AND
>> >>> SOFT ORGANS FOUND BETWEEN COAL VEINS
>> >><
>> >>>Here's a petrified human femur still embedded in slate.
>> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z8femur.jpg
>> >>><
>> >>>Here's a petrified human finger, with fingernail:
>> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FINGER/MVC-008S.JPG
>> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FINGER/MVC-011S.JPG
>> >>><
>> >>>Here's a petrified human toe (with toe nail), found only
>> >>>10-15 feet from the petrified finger.
>> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-017S.JPG
>> >>><
>> >>>Here are the petrified human finger and the petrified human
>> >>>toe shown together.
>> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-016S.JPG
>> >>><
>> >>>Here's the specimen that Krogman identified as a tibia.
>> >>>It contains Haversian canals, proof of bone, and dried
>> >>>blood was found on it >>during American Medical Laboratory
>> >>>testing. This is the specimen >>that was fraudulently
>> >>>tested by Andrew MacRae (who produced microscopic photos
>> >>>of the cell structure of a rock on the false pretense
>> >>>that he was showing the cell structure of this specimen).
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg
>> ><
>> >>>Here are two photos of the internal surface of bone
>> >>>and the petrified tibia under 2,000X magnification.
>> >>The first shows what the internal surface of cadaver
>> >>>bone looks like, the second offers a view of the internal
>> >>>surace of the specimen that Krogman had identified as
>> >>>a portion of a petrified tibia.
>> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/more.htm
>> >>><
>> >>>This is the boulder containing the complete human skull.
>> >>>Testing has confirmed the presence of Haversian canals
>> >>>and American Medical Laboratories discovered it contains
>> >>>dried blood.
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
>> >>><
>> >>>Here's a petrified human mandible (frontal).
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix5/MVC-002S.JPG
>> >>><
>> >>>Here's a portion of a human mandible (side).
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Bones/MVC-006S.JPG
>> >>><
>> >>>Here's a giant petrified tooth.
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg
>> >>><
>> >>>Here's a petrified dinosaur foot still embedded in slate.
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
>> >>><
>> >>>Here's a petrified fetus of some large animal.
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-013F.JPG
>> >>><
>> >>>Here's another petrified fetus, still embedded in slate.
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-005S.JPG
>> >>><
>> >>>Here are several views of portion of a giant prehistoric
>> >>>scorpion identified as such by Krogman.
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-001S.JPG
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-010S.JPG
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG
>> >>><
>> >>>Here's a photo of the same portion of a petrified giant
>> >>>scorpion -- found 22 years ago -- alongside one found just
>> >>>weeks ago.
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SCORPIONS/MVC-039S.JPG
>> >>><
>> >>>Here are two views of a piece of wood that appears to have
>> >>>been handcarved for use as a tool or a weapon.
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
>> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
>> >><
>> >>
>> >> Ed Conrad
>> >> http://www.edconrad.com
Ed Rhodes
2003-11-10 14:18:28 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Conrad" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On 09 Nov 2003 12:43:24 GMT, ***@aol.com (Nandomark) wrote:
> <
> >That evolution occurred is a fact, but to the question of exactly how it
> >unfolded has a few good theories.
> >
> >Incidentally, creationism is a theory, one for which there is little
evidence.
> >
> There also is no physical evidence for evolution -- the evolution of
> man.

What would constitute "physical evidence" in your mind?


> <
> Rhetoric and wishful thinking isn't physical evidence, and, need
> I remind you, close only counts in quoits.

I wish you would realize this about your own rather narrow minded theory!

> So, to answer your question, evolution is only a farfetched theory
> -- now disproven. It is NOT a fact and never will be.

Evolution is a theory that fits the physical evidence now available. Except
of course for your magical field of fossils.
Greta
2003-11-15 11:55:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:18:28 GMT, "Ed Rhodes"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>"Ed Conrad" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> On 09 Nov 2003 12:43:24 GMT, ***@aol.com (Nandomark) wrote:
>> <
>> >That evolution occurred is a fact, but to the question of exactly how it
>> >unfolded has a few good theories.
>> >
>> >Incidentally, creationism is a theory, one for which there is little
>evidence.
>> >
>> There also is no physical evidence for evolution -- the evolution of
>> man.
>
>What would constitute "physical evidence" in your mind?
>
>
>> <
>> Rhetoric and wishful thinking isn't physical evidence, and, need
>> I remind you, close only counts in quoits.
>
>I wish you would realize this about your own rather narrow minded theory!
>
>> So, to answer your question, evolution is only a farfetched theory
>> -- now disproven. It is NOT a fact and never will be.
>
>Evolution is a theory that fits the physical evidence now available. Except
>of course for your magical field of fossils.

There's an interesting article on the 'Occult Origin of Darwinism' at:
http://www.biped.info/articles/collins1.html
lensman1955
2003-11-15 15:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Greta <***@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:18:28 GMT, "Ed Rhodes"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >"Ed Conrad" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:***@4ax.com...
> >> On 09 Nov 2003 12:43:24 GMT, ***@aol.com (Nandomark) wrote:
> >> <
> >> >That evolution occurred is a fact, but to the question of exactly how it
> >> >unfolded has a few good theories.
> >> >
> >> >Incidentally, creationism is a theory, one for which there is little
> evidence.
> >> >
> >> There also is no physical evidence for evolution -- the evolution of
> >> man.
> >
> >What would constitute "physical evidence" in your mind?
> >
> >
> >> <
> >> Rhetoric and wishful thinking isn't physical evidence, and, need
> >> I remind you, close only counts in quoits.
> >
> >I wish you would realize this about your own rather narrow minded theory!
> >
> >> So, to answer your question, evolution is only a farfetched theory
> >> -- now disproven. It is NOT a fact and never will be.
> >
> >Evolution is a theory that fits the physical evidence now available. Except
> >of course for your magical field of fossils.
>
> There's an interesting article on the 'Occult Origin of Darwinism' at:
> http://www.biped.info/articles/collins1.html


Interesting paranoid rant but little else.

Simple fact is, evolution is a theory. It will remain a theory because
it cannot be taken into the laboratory and tested to be proven as a
fact. BUT it is still the theory that best matches all the physical
evidence found so far. (Unless you follow Mr. Conrad down the path of
paranoia.)
Greta
2003-11-15 22:01:57 UTC
Permalink
On 15 Nov 2003 07:10:54 -0800, ***@hotmail.com (lensman1955)
wrote:

>> There's an interesting article on the 'Occult Origin of Darwinism' at:
>> http://www.biped.info/articles/collins1.html
>
>
>Interesting paranoid rant but little else.
>
>Simple fact is, evolution is a theory. It will remain a theory because
>it cannot be taken into the laboratory and tested to be proven as a
>fact. BUT it is still the theory that best matches all the physical
>evidence found so far. (Unless you follow Mr. Conrad down the path of
>paranoia.)

I picked up a copy of Darwin's book a few weeks ago but haven't gotten
around to reading it. I haven't yet subscribed to any particular
viewpoint, though I don't believe in creationism, at least not in any
literal sense. I do find it odd, however, that we're the only species
on earth to travel by airplane.
Robert Sneddon
2003-11-15 23:49:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, Greta
<***@nospam.com> writes

> I do find it odd, however, that we're the only species
>on earth to travel by airplane.

Mice, fleas, rats, cockroaches and a whole lot more all travel longer
distances every day by plane than the most dedicated Club Class Gold
Card Supertraveller Extraservice Bonus ticket holder going. Ecological
niches and all that. I heard that a mouse was once found on the launch
platform of a Gemini rocket, just outside the capsule's hatch about two
hundred feet up in the air; that was one determined space rodent.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.

Robert Sneddon
Greta
2003-11-16 00:02:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:49:05 +0000, Robert Sneddon
<***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, Greta
><***@nospam.com> writes
>
>> I do find it odd, however, that we're the only species
>>on earth to travel by airplane.
>
> Mice, fleas, rats, cockroaches and a whole lot more all travel longer
>distances every day by plane than the most dedicated Club Class Gold
>Card Supertraveller Extraservice Bonus ticket holder going. Ecological
>niches and all that. I heard that a mouse was once found on the launch
>platform of a Gemini rocket, just outside the capsule's hatch about two
>hundred feet up in the air; that was one determined space rodent.

Guess I should've phrased that more carefully.
Rich
2003-11-16 19:02:26 UTC
Permalink
lensman1955 replied:
> Greta <***@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
>
>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:18:28 GMT, "Ed Rhodes"
>><***@verizon.net> wrote:

[...]

>>There's an interesting article on the 'Occult Origin of Darwinism' at:
>>http://www.biped.info/articles/collins1.html
>
>
> Interesting paranoid rant but little else.
>
> Simple fact is, evolution is a theory. It will remain a theory because
> it cannot be taken into the laboratory and tested to be proven as a
> fact.

It need not be taken into a laboratory. If a theory makes predictions
the predictions can be tested. Fossils, for example, get increasingly
more complex as time goes by, as evolution predicts.

> BUT it is still the theory that best matches all the physical
> evidence found so far. (Unless you follow Mr. Conrad down the path of
> paranoia.)

And there you have it. The hallmark of science is that theories can
be disproved, that they are falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable.
The problem is, so far the evidence seems to support it. Of course
the problem is an underabundance of evidence, but the fossils that
exist seem to make the case quite well.

Rich
Greta
2003-11-16 19:32:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:02:26 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
wrote:

>And there you have it. The hallmark of science is that theories can
>be disproved, that they are falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable.
>The problem is, so far the evidence seems to support it.

I'm perplexed by this statement. If evolution can be proven false,
then it cannot be true. No?
So isn't all this business about "falsifiability" just a bunch
philosophical wankery?
Your other point about theories being able to predict events is well
taken. That is ultimately what determines whether a theory will be
taken seriously or not.
Rich
2003-11-16 21:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Greta replied:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:02:26 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>And there you have it. The hallmark of science is that theories can
>>be disproved, that they are falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable.
>>The problem is, so far the evidence seems to support it.
>
>
> I'm perplexed by this statement. If evolution can be proven false,
> then it cannot be true. No?

So you see no difference between...

1) can potentially be proven false
2) has been proven false

How odd.

If I say it'll rain tomorrow at noon in Times Square, that statement
is falsifiable (although it's not a theory per se). If it rains, it's
been proven true, if it does not, it's been proven false. But tomorrow
is not yet here, so it has not yet been proven either true or false.

> So isn't all this business about "falsifiability" just a bunch
> philosophical wankery?

Only if your viewpoint is overly simplistic.

> Your other point about theories being able to predict events is well
> taken. That is ultimately what determines whether a theory will be
> taken seriously or not.

It's the same thing.

If the predictions come true, the theory is not validated, but tested,
if the prediction does not come true, the theory has potentially been
proven false. The tests themselves often fail or are proven inaccurate.

Rich
Greta
2003-11-17 13:18:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:15:10 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Greta replied:
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:02:26 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And there you have it. The hallmark of science is that theories can
>>>be disproved, that they are falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable.
>>>The problem is, so far the evidence seems to support it.
>>
>>
>> I'm perplexed by this statement. If evolution can be proven false,
>> then it cannot be true. No?
>
>So you see no difference between...
>
>1) can potentially be proven false
>2) has been proven false

I do see the difference. I just found this sentence confusing:
"The problem is, so far the evidence seems to support it."

>
>How odd.
>
>If I say it'll rain tomorrow at noon in Times Square, that statement
>is falsifiable (although it's not a theory per se). If it rains, it's
>been proven true, if it does not, it's been proven false. But tomorrow
>is not yet here, so it has not yet been proven either true or false.
>
>> So isn't all this business about "falsifiability" just a bunch
>> philosophical wankery?
>
>Only if your viewpoint is overly simplistic.

Abstraction for the sake of abstraction is, in my mind, philosophical
wankery. I'm only interested in theory to the extent that it can
deliver results. Theories are developed because they happen to be
useful, not because they have any value in and of themselves.

>
>> Your other point about theories being able to predict events is well
>> taken. That is ultimately what determines whether a theory will be
>> taken seriously or not.
>
>It's the same thing.
>
>If the predictions come true, the theory is not validated, but tested,
>if the prediction does not come true, the theory has potentially been
>proven false. The tests themselves often fail or are proven inaccurate.

But again, this is all highly abstract, of very little interest to
anyone but academic philosophers and historians of science. More
important discoveries have been made by sheer luck and trial-and-error
than by the rigid application of the 'scientific method'. This is
actually why I can accept the notion that we naturally evolved into
creatures that build airplanes and fly on them -- over the years, we
made a series of accidental discoveries which gradually started to
snowball. Now we're at a point of knowledge that alchemists couldn't
even dream of. Hope we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.
Rich
2003-11-17 15:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Greta replied:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:15:10 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Greta replied:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:02:26 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>And there you have it. The hallmark of science is that theories can
>>>>be disproved, that they are falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable.
>>>>The problem is, so far the evidence seems to support it.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm perplexed by this statement. If evolution can be proven false,
>>>then it cannot be true. No?
>>
>>So you see no difference between...
>>
>>1) can potentially be proven false
>>2) has been proven false
>
> I do see the difference. I just found this sentence confusing:
> "The problem is, so far the evidence seems to support it."

The problem to the poster I was responding to.

>>How odd.
>>
>>If I say it'll rain tomorrow at noon in Times Square, that statement
>>is falsifiable (although it's not a theory per se). If it rains, it's
>>been proven true, if it does not, it's been proven false. But tomorrow
>>is not yet here, so it has not yet been proven either true or false.
>>
>>
>>>So isn't all this business about "falsifiability" just a bunch
>>>philosophical wankery?
>>
>>Only if your viewpoint is overly simplistic.
>
> Abstraction for the sake of abstraction is, in my mind, philosophical
> wankery.

This is an abstraction about experimental evidence.

> I'm only interested in theory to the extent that it can
> deliver results.

Then what is your argument again?

> Theories are developed because they happen to be useful,

Not at all, theories are developed for the reasons of their inventors.
Take complex mathematics for example. Complex numbers had no use when
invented. They were quite an upset to the mathematical world of the
time, who were not yet on solid ground with negative numbers. Much later
they were found useful in working with electricity.

Have you ever heard the term "pure research"? It means research for
discovery, not with some specific problem in mind.

> not because they have any value in and of themselves.

I disagree on this point.

I will agree that anything useful will eventually be used. But some
things that have no use and are even wrong are in wide use. Ideology
and political pandering are also forces to contend with. That is, it
may have a use you won't agree with.

>>>Your other point about theories being able to predict events is well
>>>taken. That is ultimately what determines whether a theory will be
>>>taken seriously or not.
>>
>>It's the same thing.
>>
>>If the predictions come true, the theory is not validated, but tested,
>>if the prediction does not come true, the theory has potentially been
>>proven false. The tests themselves often fail or are proven inaccurate.
>
> But again, this is all highly abstract,

I disagree, this is very fundamental. Either something works or it does
not. How does anybody know anything works? They test it.

> of very little interest to
> anyone but academic philosophers and historians of science.

You could not be more wrong, in a general sense.

> More important discoveries have been made by sheer luck and
> trial-and-error than by the rigid application of the 'scientific method'.

Tell me what you think the "scientific method" is.

> This is
> actually why I can accept the notion that we naturally evolved into
> creatures that build airplanes and fly on them -- over the years, we
> made a series of accidental discoveries which gradually started to
> snowball.

Serendipity plays it's role, but many things, such as the transistor,
were not the result of serendipity. Many important things.

> Now we're at a point of knowledge that alchemists couldn't
> even dream of.

Or maybe this is what they dreamed of.

> Hope we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.

Or somewhere else. :^/

Rich
Greta
2003-11-17 20:10:15 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:17:43 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
wrote:

>
>
>Greta replied:
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:15:10 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Greta replied:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:02:26 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>And there you have it. The hallmark of science is that theories can
>>>>>be disproved, that they are falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable.
>>>>>The problem is, so far the evidence seems to support it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm perplexed by this statement. If evolution can be proven false,
>>>>then it cannot be true. No?
>>>
>>>So you see no difference between...
>>>
>>>1) can potentially be proven false
>>>2) has been proven false
>>
>> I do see the difference. I just found this sentence confusing:
>> "The problem is, so far the evidence seems to support it."
>
>The problem to the poster I was responding to.
>
>>>How odd.
>>>
>>>If I say it'll rain tomorrow at noon in Times Square, that statement
>>>is falsifiable (although it's not a theory per se). If it rains, it's
>>>been proven true, if it does not, it's been proven false. But tomorrow
>>>is not yet here, so it has not yet been proven either true or false.
>>>
>>>
>>>>So isn't all this business about "falsifiability" just a bunch
>>>>philosophical wankery?
>>>
>>>Only if your viewpoint is overly simplistic.
>>
>> Abstraction for the sake of abstraction is, in my mind, philosophical
>> wankery.
>
>This is an abstraction about experimental evidence.
>
>> I'm only interested in theory to the extent that it can
>> deliver results.
>
>Then what is your argument again?
>
>> Theories are developed because they happen to be useful,
>
>Not at all, theories are developed for the reasons of their inventors.
>Take complex mathematics for example. Complex numbers had no use when
>invented. They were quite an upset to the mathematical world of the
>time, who were not yet on solid ground with negative numbers. Much later
>they were found useful in working with electricity.
>
>Have you ever heard the term "pure research"? It means research for
>discovery, not with some specific problem in mind.
>
>> not because they have any value in and of themselves.
>
>I disagree on this point.
>
>I will agree that anything useful will eventually be used. But some
>things that have no use and are even wrong are in wide use. Ideology
>and political pandering are also forces to contend with. That is, it
>may have a use you won't agree with.
>
>>>>Your other point about theories being able to predict events is well
>>>>taken. That is ultimately what determines whether a theory will be
>>>>taken seriously or not.
>>>
>>>It's the same thing.
>>>
>>>If the predictions come true, the theory is not validated, but tested,
>>>if the prediction does not come true, the theory has potentially been
>>>proven false. The tests themselves often fail or are proven inaccurate.
>>
>> But again, this is all highly abstract,
>
>I disagree, this is very fundamental. Either something works or it does
>not. How does anybody know anything works? They test it.
>
>> of very little interest to
>> anyone but academic philosophers and historians of science.
>
>You could not be more wrong, in a general sense.
>
>> More important discoveries have been made by sheer luck and
> > trial-and-error than by the rigid application of the 'scientific method'.
>
>Tell me what you think the "scientific method" is.
>
>> This is
>> actually why I can accept the notion that we naturally evolved into
>> creatures that build airplanes and fly on them -- over the years, we
>> made a series of accidental discoveries which gradually started to
>> snowball.
>
>Serendipity plays it's role, but many things, such as the transistor,
>were not the result of serendipity. Many important things.

What about the triode, upon which I assume the transistor is based on?

>
>> Now we're at a point of knowledge that alchemists couldn't
>> even dream of.
>
>Or maybe this is what they dreamed of.
>
>> Hope we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.
>
>Or somewhere else. :^/
>
>Rich

All your points are valid. I was thinking about it in terms that were
too narrow. I'll have to think about it. :-)
Rich
2003-11-17 22:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Greta replied:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:17:43 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
> wrote:

[...]

>>>This is
>>>actually why I can accept the notion that we naturally evolved into
>>>creatures that build airplanes and fly on them -- over the years, we
>>>made a series of accidental discoveries which gradually started to
>>>snowball.
>>
>>Serendipity plays it's role, but many things, such as the transistor,
>>were not the result of serendipity. Many important things.
>
>
> What about the triode, upon which I assume the transistor is based on?

Here's a nice description of a triode.

http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.paia.com/%7Epaia/tubworks.htm

A transistor is a very different beast that accomplishes the same kind of
job in a quite different manner.

This ain't great, but it might give you an idea.

http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/tranen.html

If you can find anything common between them let me know. The
transistor was not based upon the triode (or diode or pentode, etc...)
to the best of my knowledge. And as an EE I've studied them in
some detail.

>>>Now we're at a point of knowledge that alchemists couldn't
>>>even dream of.
>>
>>Or maybe this is what they dreamed of.
>>
>>>Hope we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.
>>
>>Or somewhere else. :^/
>>
>>Rich
>
> All your points are valid. I was thinking about it in terms that were
> too narrow. I'll have to think about it. :-)

Cool.

BTW, I'd say that the ability to profit from serendipity is rather rare.
When something unexpected happens, what do you do? As I recall Ivory soap
was the result of an operator going to sleep while the soap was being
made. I'd tend to think that most manufacturers would have thrown the
bad batch of soap out and maybe fired the operator. But someone clearly
wondered, what do we have here? Wow, soap that floats. It takes the
ability to work out of the box as they say.

Rich (who only has trouble staying awake during important meetings)
Greta
2003-11-17 22:10:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:00:52 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
wrote:

>BTW, I'd say that the ability to profit from serendipity is rather rare.

Except in the case of Teflon! Or of Newton's apple (assuming that's
not just a fairy tale).
Rich
2003-11-17 22:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Greta replied:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:00:52 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, I'd say that the ability to profit from serendipity is rather rare.
>
>
> Except in the case of Teflon!

http://www.rochester.infi.net/~rwhend/teflon.html

Cool, I was not aware of this one.

> Or of Newton's apple (assuming that's not just a fairy tale).


That one's a myth. But a good one.

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/Notes8.html

Rich
Greta
2003-11-17 22:21:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:00:52 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
wrote:

>> What about the triode, upon which I assume the transistor is based on?
>
>Here's a nice description of a triode.
>
>http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.paia.com/%7Epaia/tubworks.htm
>
>A transistor is a very different beast that accomplishes the same kind of
>job in a quite different manner.
>
>This ain't great, but it might give you an idea.
>
> http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/tranen.html
>
>If you can find anything common between them let me know. The
>transistor was not based upon the triode (or diode or pentode, etc...)
>to the best of my knowledge. And as an EE I've studied them in
>some detail.

Thanks for the links. I wasn't suggesting that they were technically
the same, or operated in exactly the same way; just that they were the
same in general principle, and could serve many of the same functions.
I'm not convinced the transistor would have come into being if the
triode hadn't come first.
Rich
2003-11-17 22:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Greta replied:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:00:52 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>What about the triode, upon which I assume the transistor is based on?
>>
>>Here's a nice description of a triode.
>>
>>http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.paia.com/%7Epaia/tubworks.htm
>>
>>A transistor is a very different beast that accomplishes the same kind of
>>job in a quite different manner.
>>
>>This ain't great, but it might give you an idea.
>>
>> http://www.4p8.com/eric.brasseur/tranen.html
>>
>>If you can find anything common between them let me know. The
>>transistor was not based upon the triode (or diode or pentode, etc...)
>>to the best of my knowledge. And as an EE I've studied them in
>>some detail.
>
> Thanks for the links. I wasn't suggesting that they were technically
> the same, or operated in exactly the same way; just that they were the
> same in general principle, and could serve many of the same functions.

The 747 serves the same function as the Kon Tiki. But they do not share
the same lineage. BTW, ever been in an outrigger? They are very low to
the water, one big wave and you get swamped. Stay in during typhoons. :^/

> I'm not convinced the transistor would have come into being if the
> triode hadn't come first.

I don't think so either, given it's history. But that does not mean that
the transistor is based upon the triode. They had semiconductor diodes
(or a sort) in the 1950's. They were nor based upon the vacuum diode,
nor were they good enough to replace the vacuum diode except for a few
things.

Rich
Greta
2003-11-18 01:03:59 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:31:41 -0800, Rich <***@someplace.com>
wrote:

>> Thanks for the links. I wasn't suggesting that they were technically
>> the same, or operated in exactly the same way; just that they were the
>> same in general principle, and could serve many of the same functions.
>
>The 747 serves the same function as the Kon Tiki. But they do not share
>the same lineage. BTW, ever been in an outrigger? They are very low to
>the water, one big wave and you get swamped. Stay in during typhoons. :^/

Never been on one! I'll elect to stay off the water the next time
there's a typhoon :-)
John Wilkins
2003-11-09 22:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Nandomark <***@aol.com> wrote:

> That evolution occurred is a fact, but to the question of exactly how it
> unfolded has a few good theories.
>
> Incidentally, creationism is a theory, one for which there is little evidence.

What theory? No predictions, no equations, no interpretable method or
protocols apart from "read Genesis and guess". Excludes no possible
outcome, like hexapodal mammals. That's not a theory, that's
wish-fulfilment.
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Penny Nickels
2003-12-03 05:02:00 UTC
Permalink
"Ed Conrad" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On 09 Nov 2003 12:43:24 GMT, ***@aol.com (Nandomark) wrote:
> <
> >That evolution occurred is a fact, but to the question of exactly how it
> >unfolded has a few good theories.
> >
> >Incidentally, creationism is a theory, one for which there is little
evidence.
> >
> There also is no physical evidence for evolution -- the evolution of
> man.
>
I must disagree. There is evidence of change: is that evolution?
If so, then evolution has occurred. It doesn't matter whether
you believe change happened by slow, gradual, imperceptible
change where one species graded into another, or whether
species abruptly disappeared from the fossil record and were
replaced by other species. It is still change (evolution).
> <
> Rhetoric and wishful thinking isn't physical evidence, and, need
> I remind you, close only counts in quoits.
> <
> So, to answer your question, evolution is only a farfetched theory
> -- now disproven. It is NOT a fact and never will be.
> >
> >> >================================================
> >>
> >> THIS IS WHAT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE LOOKS LIKE
> >>
> >> >> ===============================================
> >> ><
> >> Petrified Bones, Teeth and Soft Organs
> >> (Some Human) Found Between Coal Veins
> >> >>
> >> >> ===============================================
> >> >>>
> >> >>> OLDEST HUMAN SKULL EVER FOUND
> >> >>
> >> >>> http://www.edconrad.com/images/z11calv.jpg
> >> >>> http://www.edconrad.com/images/krogwskull.jpg
> >> >>>
> >> >>Wilton Krogman, one of the world's foremost experts
> >> >>on human anatomy, holds what he had identified as
> >> >>a petrified human calvarium, a skull with the eye
> >> >>sockets broken off, that was discovered between
> >> >>Pennsylvania's anthracite veins. He is shown at his
> >> >>desk at the Cooper Clinic in Lancaster, Pa., where
> >> >>moments later he beckoned a colleague -- a medical
> >> >>doctor -- to examine "the oldest human skull ever
> >> >>found."
> >> >><
> >> >>A CATscan was performed on this specimen with
> >> >>favorable results.
> >> >><
> >> >>> http://www.edconrad.com/images/catcalv.jpg
> >> >><
> >> >>Meanwhile, Haversian canals were identified in the
> >> >>cell structue, the tell-tale sign of bone. And dried
> >> >>blood was found on the specimen during testing at
> >> >>American Medical Laboratories in Chantilly, Va.
> >> >><
> >> >>This is the official report from AML which had
> >> >>erformed Calculus Analysis by Crystallography.
> >> >>The final report, dated April 21, 2000, was issued
> >> >>by Dr. Nathan Sherman, director of laboratories.
> >> >>
> >> >>> "The specimen consists of 1 irregularly
> >> >>> shaped, brown calculus weighing less
> >> >>> than 0.0010 grams and measuring 1X1X0.5
> >> >>> mm. No nidus is observed. The calculi
> >> >>> indicates a composition of dried blood
> >> >>> intermingled with a few small crystals
> >> >>> resembling calcium oxalate dihydrate."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.edconrad.com/images/z12calv.jpg
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.edconrad.com/images/z13cav.jpg
> >> >>>
> >> >>=============================================
> >> >>>
> >> >>> OTHER PETRIFIED BONES, TEETH AND
> >> >>> SOFT ORGANS FOUND BETWEEN COAL VEINS
> >> >><
> >> >>>Here's a petrified human femur still embedded in slate.
> >> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z8femur.jpg
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here's a petrified human finger, with fingernail:
> >> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FINGER/MVC-008S.JPG
> >> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FINGER/MVC-011S.JPG
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here's a petrified human toe (with toe nail), found only
> >> >>>10-15 feet from the petrified finger.
> >> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-017S.JPG
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here are the petrified human finger and the petrified human
> >> >>>toe shown together.
> >> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Au29/MVC-016S.JPG
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here's the specimen that Krogman identified as a tibia.
> >> >>>It contains Haversian canals, proof of bone, and dried
> >> >>>blood was found on it >>during American Medical Laboratory
> >> >>>testing. This is the specimen >>that was fraudulently
> >> >>>tested by Andrew MacRae (who produced microscopic photos
> >> >>>of the cell structure of a rock on the false pretense
> >> >>>that he was showing the cell structure of this specimen).
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg
> >> ><
> >> >>>Here are two photos of the internal surface of bone
> >> >>>and the petrified tibia under 2,000X magnification.
> >> >>The first shows what the internal surface of cadaver
> >> >>>bone looks like, the second offers a view of the internal
> >> >>>surace of the specimen that Krogman had identified as
> >> >>>a portion of a petrified tibia.
> >> >>>> http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/more.htm
> >> >>><
> >> >>>This is the boulder containing the complete human skull.
> >> >>>Testing has confirmed the presence of Haversian canals
> >> >>>and American Medical Laboratories discovered it contains
> >> >>>dried blood.
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here's a petrified human mandible (frontal).
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix5/MVC-002S.JPG
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here's a portion of a human mandible (side).
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Bones/MVC-006S.JPG
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here's a giant petrified tooth.
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here's a petrified dinosaur foot still embedded in slate.
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here's a petrified fetus of some large animal.
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/MVC-013F.JPG
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here's another petrified fetus, still embedded in slate.
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-005S.JPG
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here are several views of portion of a giant prehistoric
> >> >>>scorpion identified as such by Krogman.
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-001S.JPG
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-010S.JPG
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here's a photo of the same portion of a petrified giant
> >> >>>scorpion -- found 22 years ago -- alongside one found just
> >> >>>weeks ago.
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/SCORPIONS/MVC-039S.JPG
> >> >>><
> >> >>>Here are two views of a piece of wood that appears to have
> >> >>>been handcarved for use as a tool or a weapon.
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
> >> >>>>> http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
> >> >><
> >> >>
> >> >> Ed Conrad
> >> >> http://www.edconrad.com
>
William David Thweatt
2003-11-10 16:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
: William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:

: : : Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism. But creationism
: : : has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
: : : not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
: : : comes along evolution is the best one that we have.

: : Actually, Evolution is a scientifictheory, while Creationism is a
: : religious doctrine/dogma (depending upon the denomination). While
: : Evolution can be tested and experiments and observations can modify or
: : even call it into question, Creationism is as untestable as "Last
: : Tuesdayism." We simply cannot travel backward through time and watch
: : evolution or creation happen. Therefore Creationism can never be
: : "disproven" in the scientific sense, and Evolution is the only observable
: : option (other religious creation stories are included in Judeo-Christian
: : Creation in this argument for convenience).

: : Interestingly, most Creationists have no problem with what they call
: : "microevolution" where a species adapts to its environment. They just
: : don't believe in new species coming about through evolution. Since
: : Evolution/Creation does not have a HUGE effect on everyday life (or even
: : the quantum theory for that matter), I don't see why so many people make
: : such a big deal about it.


: As you mention below, the big deal of it is the presence or existence of
: God. Creationism mentions God specifically whereas evolution does not. Now
: one can believe in God and evolution but will not believe in God in the
: biblical, traditional sense.

I disagree. It is not blasphemous to recognize creativity in Creation.
What is a few billion years to an all-powerful, infinite being?

: : Belief in God and His Son and the Holy Spiritas the Divine Trinity, the
: : Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Death and Resurection of Jesus for our
: : forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life is based in faith. You don't
: : prove faith. You believe. The same goes with reincarnation, Mohammad,
: : Mosaic Law, The Dharmas, etc.

: But that is the big thing of it. Faith. Many people are quite passionate
: about "faith" and THAT is the big deal. Me, I'm passionate about science
: and like the self correcting aspect of true science.

Do you think it is impossible to be passionate about both?

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
***@ruf.rice.edu
***@us.army.mil
Eric Chomko
2003-11-10 23:29:55 UTC
Permalink
William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
: : William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: : : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:

: : : : Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism. But creationism
: : : : has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
: : : : not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
: : : : comes along evolution is the best one that we have.

: : : Actually, Evolution is a scientifictheory, while Creationism is a
: : : religious doctrine/dogma (depending upon the denomination). While
: : : Evolution can be tested and experiments and observations can modify or
: : : even call it into question, Creationism is as untestable as "Last
: : : Tuesdayism." We simply cannot travel backward through time and watch
: : : evolution or creation happen. Therefore Creationism can never be
: : : "disproven" in the scientific sense, and Evolution is the only observable
: : : option (other religious creation stories are included in Judeo-Christian
: : : Creation in this argument for convenience).

: : : Interestingly, most Creationists have no problem with what they call
: : : "microevolution" where a species adapts to its environment. They just
: : : don't believe in new species coming about through evolution. Since
: : : Evolution/Creation does not have a HUGE effect on everyday life (or even
: : : the quantum theory for that matter), I don't see why so many people make
: : : such a big deal about it.


: : As you mention below, the big deal of it is the presence or existence of
: : God. Creationism mentions God specifically whereas evolution does not. Now
: : one can believe in God and evolution but will not believe in God in the
: : biblical, traditional sense.

: I disagree. It is not blasphemous to recognize creativity in Creation.
: What is a few billion years to an all-powerful, infinite being?

Creavitity or poetry? Creativity in this context is vague to say the
least.

: : : Belief in God and His Son and the Holy Spiritas the Divine Trinity, the
: : : Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Death and Resurection of Jesus for our
: : : forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life is based in faith. You don't
: : : prove faith. You believe. The same goes with reincarnation, Mohammad,
: : : Mosaic Law, The Dharmas, etc.

: : But that is the big thing of it. Faith. Many people are quite passionate
: : about "faith" and THAT is the big deal. Me, I'm passionate about science
: : and like the self correcting aspect of true science.

: Do you think it is impossible to be passionate about both?

Well if you like poetry and think of Creationism as such, no. But if you
think both are truth, then yes I think it impossible due to their mutually
exclusive aspects. Otherwise, it smacks as Orwellian "doublethink."

Eric

: --
: --
: William "Dave" Thweatt
: Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
: Chemistry Department
: Rice University
: Houston, TX
: ***@ruf.rice.edu
: ***@us.army.mil
William David Thweatt
2003-11-11 15:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
: William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
: : : William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: : : : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:

: : : : : Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism. But creationism
: : : : : has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
: : : : : not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
: : : : : comes along evolution is the best one that we have.

: : : : Actually, Evolution is a scientifictheory, while Creationism is a
: : : : religious doctrine/dogma (depending upon the denomination). While
: : : : Evolution can be tested and experiments and observations can modify or
: : : : even call it into question, Creationism is as untestable as "Last
: : : : Tuesdayism." We simply cannot travel backward through time and watch
: : : : evolution or creation happen. Therefore Creationism can never be
: : : : "disproven" in the scientific sense, and Evolution is the only observable
: : : : option (other religious creation stories are included in Judeo-Christian
: : : : Creation in this argument for convenience).

: : : : Interestingly, most Creationists have no problem with what they call
: : : : "microevolution" where a species adapts to its environment. They just
: : : : don't believe in new species coming about through evolution. Since
: : : : Evolution/Creation does not have a HUGE effect on everyday life (or even
: : : : the quantum theory for that matter), I don't see why so many people make
: : : : such a big deal about it.


: : : As you mention below, the big deal of it is the presence or existence of
: : : God. Creationism mentions God specifically whereas evolution does not. Now
: : : one can believe in God and evolution but will not believe in God in the
: : : biblical, traditional sense.

: : I disagree. It is not blasphemous to recognize creativity in Creation.
: : What is a few billion years to an all-powerful, infinite being?

: Creavitity or poetry? Creativity in this context is vague to say the
: least.

: : : : Belief in God and His Son and the Holy Spiritas the Divine Trinity, the
: : : : Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Death and Resurection of Jesus for our
: : : : forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life is based in faith. You don't
: : : : prove faith. You believe. The same goes with reincarnation, Mohammad,
: : : : Mosaic Law, The Dharmas, etc.

: : : But that is the big thing of it. Faith. Many people are quite passionate
: : : about "faith" and THAT is the big deal. Me, I'm passionate about science
: : : and like the self correcting aspect of true science.

: : Do you think it is impossible to be passionate about both?

: Well if you like poetry and think of Creationism as such, no. But if you
: think both are truth, then yes I think it impossible due to their mutually
: exclusive aspects. Otherwise, it smacks as Orwellian "doublethink."

My point is that it is not inconsistent to give God the credit for
creating the universe (creating the wave function of the universe for
those who follow philosophy based on the Quantum Theory), yet seek to
understand the "how" of that creation. Theology is mostly interested in
"why" while science delves into the "how."

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
***@ruf.rice.edu
***@us.army.mil
B
2003-11-12 01:08:47 UTC
Permalink
***@rice.edu (William David Thweatt) wrote in
news:boqvou$m7c$***@joe.rice.edu:

> Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
>: William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
>: : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
>: : : William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
>: : : : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
>
>: : : : : Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism. But
>: : : : : creationism has been debunked. And though evolution has not
>: : : : : been proven it has also not been disproven as has
>: : : : : creationism. Therefore, until a better theory comes along
>: : : : : evolution is the best one that we have.
>
>: : : : Actually, Evolution is a scientifictheory, while Creationism is
>: : : : a religious doctrine/dogma (depending upon the denomination).
>: : : : While Evolution can be tested and experiments and observations
>: : : : can modify or even call it into question, Creationism is as
>: : : : untestable as "Last Tuesdayism." We simply cannot travel
>: : : : backward through time and watch evolution or creation happen.
>: : : : Therefore Creationism can never be "disproven" in the
>: : : : scientific sense, and Evolution is the only observable
>: : : : option (other religious creation stories are included in
>: : : : Judeo-Christian Creation in this argument for convenience).
>
>: : : : Interestingly, most Creationists have no problem with what they
>: : : : call "microevolution" where a species adapts to its
>: : : : environment. They just don't believe in new species coming
>: : : : about through evolution. Since Evolution/Creation does not
>: : : : have a HUGE effect on everyday life (or even the quantum theory
>: : : : for that matter), I don't see why so many people make
>: : : : such a big deal about it.
>
>
>: : : As you mention below, the big deal of it is the presence or
>: : : existence of God. Creationism mentions God specifically whereas
>: : : evolution does not. Now one can believe in God and evolution but
>: : : will not believe in God in the biblical, traditional sense.
>
>: : I disagree. It is not blasphemous to recognize creativity in
>: : Creation. What is a few billion years to an all-powerful, infinite
>: : being?
>
>: Creavitity or poetry? Creativity in this context is vague to say the
>: least.
>
>: : : : Belief in God and His Son and the Holy Spiritas the Divine
>: : : : Trinity, the Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Death and Resurection
>: : : : of Jesus for our forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life
>: : : : is based in faith. You don't prove faith. You believe. The
>: : : : same goes with reincarnation, Mohammad, Mosaic Law, The
>: : : : Dharmas, etc.
>
>: : : But that is the big thing of it. Faith. Many people are quite
>: : : passionate about "faith" and THAT is the big deal. Me, I'm
>: : : passionate about science and like the self correcting aspect of
>: : : true science.
>
>: : Do you think it is impossible to be passionate about both?
>
>: Well if you like poetry and think of Creationism as such, no. But if
>: you think both are truth, then yes I think it impossible due to their
>: mutually exclusive aspects. Otherwise, it smacks as Orwellian
>: "doublethink."
>
> My point is that it is not inconsistent to give God the credit for
> creating the universe (creating the wave function of the universe for
> those who follow philosophy based on the Quantum Theory), yet seek to
> understand the "how" of that creation. Theology is mostly interested
> in "why" while science delves into the "how."
>

Hey Dave did you mention that in your thesis? :)

When you get back beyond (I think it's called the Planck Time) which if
my college physics is remembered, is about 10**(-43) seconds secs after
the "big bang" then all normal physics including gravity and normal
space/time flies out the window.

Planck time = Planck length / c = 10**(-43) seconds.

You can then introduce anything you like, even an invisible creator if
you wish, if you are so inclined.

I would just point out that 400 years ago the motion of the planets was
considered to be a good argument for the existence of "god" since nobody
could explain it otherwise.

"Creationism" is not a science it is a faith and if taught should be
taught as such. Personally I have no problem with it being taught in that
fashion as part of some comparative religious course or the like.

B.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
"The Iraqi people love the US it's the French they hate"
***@aol.com (BVallely)
--------------------------------------------------------
The "wisdom" of Bill Bonde: On why we invaded Iraq.

The terrorists who attacked us were not Afghanis. In fact,
Afghanis have pretty much stayed in Afghanistan. The
terrorists who attacked us were ARABS. Where are the Arabs?
The Middle East. Where is Iraq? Right in the middle of the
Middle East!


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Bryan Butler
2003-11-12 20:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Name: Bryan Butler

My name is Bryan Butler and I have been working my whole life trying
to find the truth. I have found the connection, the truth.
I have simplified what others could not. I am finding myself
bored and I am no longer challanged.

I gave a presentation in my class and it had to be under 3 minutes,
it went as follows. Though I can explain it better in person.



_____________________Deep thinking with Bryan Butler____________
Title




1.Introduction

For my topic I have chosen a difficult concept to Convey. And that is,
if it would be possible or even conceivable that nothing would be in
the center of the earth.
So for my time with you we are going to do some light deep thinking
and try to think a little out of the box and hopefully no one will get
hurt.
My objective is to make one good point that would support nothing
being in the center of the planet.
I have a short amount of time, and I have racked my brain trying to
find the best way to accomplish my objective here today and I believe
the answer for achieving my objective is to talk about opposites, more
over antonyms.

2.Body

Antonyms are words that are opposite, ladies and gentlemen.

So here is a quick list of other antonyms, Good/Bad, Wrong/Right,
Up/Down, Left/Right, Day/Night, Beginning/End, Forever/Never, Yes/NO,
Open/Close, Forward/Backwards, In/Out, Plus/Minus, Positive and
Negative, and so On and so OFF. (Boy that was a mouthful)

Now when I was younger I found that I had a Mother and Father, and
soon after I had a Brother and Sister, I went outside my house and saw
the day and sure enough sooner or later the night came. I went to
school and I found, Educated and Uneducated, I found Rich and Poor, I
found Smart and Dumb, I found Right and Wrong and I learned about
Kindness and Cruelness, I learned about Mercy and Ruthlessness, I
learned about 1 and 0, about positive and negative, about North and
South, about On and Off. So as my time decreased here on earth I
found my grade levels increased and I learned that I was stacking this
Opposites and Similarities in order to learn. I then realized I should
put the similarities into categories, so I took words like kindness,
Mercy, fairness, and others and grouped them together and found the
name for that category to be Good. I then grouped the words Cruelness,
Ruthlessness and unfairness, and found the name of that category to be
bad. Not surprisingly I found, of Course, each category still had an
opposite. But then I came upon a problem in school. I learned that hot
and cold went into the category Temperature. I learned that queit and
load went into the category sound. I learned about other categories,
such as Color, such as taste and smell, such as Time and Weight. The
problem came when trying to find the opposites of those categories. So
I grouped them together Time, Temperature, Color, taste, smell,
weight, and all other categories that I had ever seen. What do they
all have in Common I then asked my self and the answer was simply,
ENERGY.



3.Conclusion

So the next question I came upon was this, can there be one without
zero, could there be on without off, could there be white without
black.
In a movie there are good guys and bad guys, problems and solutions,
so would it be enjoyable to come up with a movie that had only Good
guys and solutions without problems. How could you have a solution
without first having a problem? How would you know what a good guy was
if there was not a bad guy to compare him too. Well sounds about as
good an Idea as having a computer language with only 1's. If all you
had ever seen was darkness how would you truly know you were in
darkness until you saw the light?

So they say no matter how many times you split a magnet you always
have a positive and a negative, JUST LIKE CATEGORIES. So if opposites
attract like positive and negative, and they don't exist without each
other. Could Energies opposite be the absence of all energy types,
meaning No Time, No smell, No taste, No temperature, and the absence
of all color, making it pure black? The center of your eye is not pure
black but energy black attracting all possible light, not stones or
other energy types though. The center of the earth could be the
absence of all energy, pure black, attracting all possible energy none
excluded and as a result gravity is created.


So if you wouldn't mind I would like to write a few things on the
board.

Truth |Lie

English/ Something + Nothing = Everything |contradiction = Not 1
Math/ 1 + 0 = 1 |contradiction = Not 1
Science/ Energy +Ab-energy = 0 |contradiction = NOT 1

What's the opposite of the Category Everything, How could anyone
find the
truth without the contradiction? The opposites truth and lie are the
final
opposites!!

Zero + one = One, and you can't see the zero anymore.
Something + Nothing = Everything, You still can't see the nothing.
Energy + the Absence of energy = 0, the line representing the 1 making
it possible to see the 0 and the 1 together for the can not exist
without eachother.

Most people when they see this 0 they say it is a Zero but I see a 1
not just a
Zero.

To explain, I took a stick and put it in the dirt and moved it around
in a
circle and I got a blurry one around the zero, like a wheel. The one
made it possible to find the zero!


d. The 0 demonstration.
1. How could you see Zero without the 1? You could not see it (erase
it).
2. How could you know energy without the absence of all energy? (leave
it)
d. Thank you all for listening I wish you all the best in your life
Frank Reichenbacher
2003-11-12 20:31:28 UTC
Permalink
"Bryan Butler" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> Name: Bryan Butler

You need therapy and drugs.

Frank
John Wilkins
2003-11-12 22:51:22 UTC
Permalink
Frank Reichenbacher <***@speakeasy.net> wrote:

> "Bryan Butler" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@posting.google.com...
> > Name: Bryan Butler
>
> You need therapy and drugs.
>
He just needs to read Aristotle's _Categories_, that's all.

--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
B
2003-11-13 01:51:27 UTC
Permalink
"Frank Reichenbacher" <***@speakeasy.net> wrote in
news:c9adnUcZ5eQhCy-iRVn-***@speakeasy.net:

>
> "Bryan Butler" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:***@posting.google.com...
>> Name: Bryan Butler
>
> You need therapy and drugs.
>
> Frank
>
>
>

Both... in large quantities.

I have seen some shit posted on this ng. (Passim - Frog, Billary, Bonde,
Addled et al) but nothing quite as fucked up as this...

It's almost "hank like" in it's absurdity.

B.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
"The Iraqi people love the US it's the French they hate"
***@aol.com (BVallely)
--------------------------------------------------------
The "wisdom" of Bill Bonde: On NATO.

What's a "NATO"? What relevancy does this "NATO" have to
anything?
-----------------------------------------------------------



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Rich
2003-11-12 20:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Bryan Butler replied:
> Name: Bryan Butler

[...]

> Zero + one = One, and you can't see the zero anymore.

OK, I'm with you so far.

> Something + Nothing = Everything, You still can't see the nothing.

restated this looks like 1 + 0 = infinity.

Better check your math.

> Energy + the Absence of energy = 0, the line representing the 1 making
> it possible to see the 0 and the 1 together for the can not exist
> without eachother.

If energy is 1 and absense of energy is zero (which seems reasonable)
you have just stated that 1 + 0 = 0, contradicting your first claim.

Better check your math.

> Most people when they see this 0 they say it is a Zero but I see a 1
> not just a Zero.

How do you mean? What do you think most people see?

> To explain, I took a stick and put it in the dirt and moved it around
> in a circle and I got a blurry one around the zero, like a wheel. The one
> made it possible to find the zero!

It made it possible to write the symbol for zero.

> d. The 0 demonstration.
> 1. How could you see Zero without the 1? You could not see it (erase it).

Shultz saw nothing whatever was there.

> 2. How could you know energy without the absence of all energy? (leave it)

How can you know the absense of energy? Where could you find it?

Rich

> d. Thank you all for listening I wish you all the best in your life
Eric Chomko
2003-11-12 23:46:14 UTC
Permalink
William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
: : William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: : : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
: : : : William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: : : : : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:

: : : : : : Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism. But creationism
: : : : : : has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
: : : : : : not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
: : : : : : comes along evolution is the best one that we have.

: : : : : Actually, Evolution is a scientifictheory, while Creationism is a
: : : : : religious doctrine/dogma (depending upon the denomination). While
: : : : : Evolution can be tested and experiments and observations can modify or
: : : : : even call it into question, Creationism is as untestable as "Last
: : : : : Tuesdayism." We simply cannot travel backward through time and watch
: : : : : evolution or creation happen. Therefore Creationism can never be
: : : : : "disproven" in the scientific sense, and Evolution is the only observable
: : : : : option (other religious creation stories are included in Judeo-Christian
: : : : : Creation in this argument for convenience).

: : : : : Interestingly, most Creationists have no problem with what they call
: : : : : "microevolution" where a species adapts to its environment. They just
: : : : : don't believe in new species coming about through evolution. Since
: : : : : Evolution/Creation does not have a HUGE effect on everyday life (or even
: : : : : the quantum theory for that matter), I don't see why so many people make
: : : : : such a big deal about it.


: : : : As you mention below, the big deal of it is the presence or existence of
: : : : God. Creationism mentions God specifically whereas evolution does not. Now
: : : : one can believe in God and evolution but will not believe in God in the
: : : : biblical, traditional sense.

: : : I disagree. It is not blasphemous to recognize creativity in Creation.
: : : What is a few billion years to an all-powerful, infinite being?

: : Creavitity or poetry? Creativity in this context is vague to say the
: : least.

: : : : : Belief in God and His Son and the Holy Spiritas the Divine Trinity, the
: : : : : Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Death and Resurection of Jesus for our
: : : : : forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life is based in faith. You don't
: : : : : prove faith. You believe. The same goes with reincarnation, Mohammad,
: : : : : Mosaic Law, The Dharmas, etc.

: : : : But that is the big thing of it. Faith. Many people are quite passionate
: : : : about "faith" and THAT is the big deal. Me, I'm passionate about science
: : : : and like the self correcting aspect of true science.

: : : Do you think it is impossible to be passionate about both?

: : Well if you like poetry and think of Creationism as such, no. But if you
: : think both are truth, then yes I think it impossible due to their mutually
: : exclusive aspects. Otherwise, it smacks as Orwellian "doublethink."

: My point is that it is not inconsistent to give God the credit for
: creating the universe (creating the wave function of the universe for
: those who follow philosophy based on the Quantum Theory), yet seek to
: understand the "how" of that creation. Theology is mostly interested in
: "why" while science delves into the "how."

But can't it be argued that "God" is all of what we simply just don't
know? As we learn more and more God changes in this context.

Theology is about faith. Science is about truth. If you can separate them
and it works for you, then who am I to say that it is bad? OTOH, I don't
want someone telling me that their faith is the truth.

Eric


: --
: --
: William "Dave" Thweatt
: Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
: Chemistry Department
: Rice University
: Houston, TX
: ***@ruf.rice.edu
: ***@us.army.mil
William David Thweatt
2003-11-13 16:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
: William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
: : : William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: : : : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
: : : : : William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: : : : : : Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:

: : : : : : : Evolution most certainly is a theory as is creationism. But creationism
: : : : : : : has been debunked. And though evolution has not been proven it has also
: : : : : : : not been disproven as has creationism. Therefore, until a better theory
: : : : : : : comes along evolution is the best one that we have.

: : : : : : Actually, Evolution is a scientifictheory, while Creationism is a
: : : : : : religious doctrine/dogma (depending upon the denomination). While
: : : : : : Evolution can be tested and experiments and observations can modify or
: : : : : : even call it into question, Creationism is as untestable as "Last
: : : : : : Tuesdayism." We simply cannot travel backward through time and watch
: : : : : : evolution or creation happen. Therefore Creationism can never be
: : : : : : "disproven" in the scientific sense, and Evolution is the only observable
: : : : : : option (other religious creation stories are included in Judeo-Christian
: : : : : : Creation in this argument for convenience).

: : : : : : Interestingly, most Creationists have no problem with what they call
: : : : : : "microevolution" where a species adapts to its environment. They just
: : : : : : don't believe in new species coming about through evolution. Since
: : : : : : Evolution/Creation does not have a HUGE effect on everyday life (or even
: : : : : : the quantum theory for that matter), I don't see why so many people make
: : : : : : such a big deal about it.


: : : : : As you mention below, the big deal of it is the presence or existence of
: : : : : God. Creationism mentions God specifically whereas evolution does not. Now
: : : : : one can believe in God and evolution but will not believe in God in the
: : : : : biblical, traditional sense.

: : : : I disagree. It is not blasphemous to recognize creativity in Creation.
: : : : What is a few billion years to an all-powerful, infinite being?

: : : Creavitity or poetry? Creativity in this context is vague to say the
: : : least.

: : : : : : Belief in God and His Son and the Holy Spiritas the Divine Trinity, the
: : : : : : Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Death and Resurection of Jesus for our
: : : : : : forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life is based in faith. You don't
: : : : : : prove faith. You believe. The same goes with reincarnation, Mohammad,
: : : : : : Mosaic Law, The Dharmas, etc.

: : : : : But that is the big thing of it. Faith. Many people are quite passionate
: : : : : about "faith" and THAT is the big deal. Me, I'm passionate about science
: : : : : and like the self correcting aspect of true science.

: : : : Do you think it is impossible to be passionate about both?

: : : Well if you like poetry and think of Creationism as such, no. But if you
: : : think both are truth, then yes I think it impossible due to their mutually
: : : exclusive aspects. Otherwise, it smacks as Orwellian "doublethink."

: : My point is that it is not inconsistent to give God the credit for
: : creating the universe (creating the wave function of the universe for
: : those who follow philosophy based on the Quantum Theory), yet seek to
: : understand the "how" of that creation. Theology is mostly interested in
: : "why" while science delves into the "how."

: But can't it be argued that "God" is all of what we simply just don't
: know? As we learn more and more God changes in this context.

You can argue that God is a stick if you want, however you would not be
talking about the Judeo-Christain God.

: Theology is about faith. Science is about truth. If you can separate them
: and it works for you, then who am I to say that it is bad? OTOH, I don't
: want someone telling me that their faith is the truth.

IMO, science and religion are orthogonal to a very large extent. If you
are not religious, why would it bother you for someone who IS religious to
tell you what he believes? For example, I am not a Buddhist, but if a
Buddhist wants to tell me all about the Fundamental Truths of Buddhism, it
does not bother me. In fact I'd be interested in his take on it. The
same with Jews, Catholics, Russian Orthodox Chrisytians, Copts, Muslims,
Seiks, Hindus, animists, Roman pagans, druids, wiccans, or whatever.
Other people's religious beliefs (within reason, i.e. not the "God told
me to kill you" beliefs) are not threatening to me.

Why are they threatening to you?

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
***@ruf.rice.edu
***@us.army.mil
a***@no-spam-panix.com
2003-11-13 21:29:39 UTC
Permalink
>>>>> William David Thweatt writes:

>> But can't it be argued that "God" is all of what we simply just don't
>> know? As we learn more and more God changes in this context.

William> You can argue that God is a stick if you want, however you would not be
William> talking about the Judeo-Christain God.

Judeo-Christian-Islamic :)

>> Theology is about faith. Science is about truth. If you can separate them
>> and it works for you, then who am I to say that it is bad? OTOH, I don't
>> want someone telling me that their faith is the truth.

William> IMO, science and religion are orthogonal to a very large extent. If you

I agree, but many atheists and theists do not.

William> are not religious, why would it bother you for someone who IS religious to
William> tell you what he believes? For example, I am not a Buddhist, but if a
William> Buddhist wants to tell me all about the Fundamental Truths of Buddhism, it
William> does not bother me. In fact I'd be interested in his take on it. The
William> same with Jews, Catholics, Russian Orthodox Chrisytians, Copts, Muslims,
William> Seiks, Hindus, animists, Roman pagans, druids, wiccans, or whatever.
William> Other people's religious beliefs (within reason, i.e. not the "God told
William> me to kill you" beliefs) are not threatening to me.

William> Why are they threatening to you?

They are only threatening when they try to write their
religion into law, or indoctrinate the children of others
with their mythology. Such as equal time for creation
"science" in biology classrooms.



--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
LibMind
2003-11-14 14:58:20 UTC
Permalink
I find the very question interesting. A "theory" (in the language of
modern science) is a proposition, supported by enough "fact" or "data"
to be considered probably true. To say that evolution is a "theory" is
to say that it is probably true based on accumulated data. To say that
evolution is an unsubstantiated idea would be equivalant, not to its
being a "mere" theory, but its being a "hypothesis." But, as it
stands, yes, evolution is a scientific theory, as probably true as
Newton's "law" of inertia.

And I also fail to see the threat to those that believe in God's hand
in creation.
Evolution is simply a theory describing a process within the
innerworkings of God's creation. There isn't even a contradiction
between the concept of evolution (which pre-dates modern science by
the way -- the hellene philosopher Heraclitus was among the first to
propose a philosophical concept of material evolution. Aristotle also
accepted the idea.) and Genesis. That is if the truth of Genesis is
thought to be symbolic. Only those who wish to see literalism in
Genesis will have a problem with evolution.

Timoleon
Elmer Bataitis
2003-11-14 15:10:59 UTC
Permalink
LibMind wrote:

> I find the very question interesting. A "theory" (in the language of
> modern science) is a proposition, supported by enough "fact" or "data"
> to be considered probably true.

A theory in science means an explanation for facts seen. It is itself,
not a fact.

**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************
Eric Chomko
2003-11-14 21:45:44 UTC
Permalink
William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
: Eric Chomko (***@polaris.umuc.edu) wrote:
: : William David Thweatt (***@rice.edu) wrote:
[...]
: : : : : I disagree. It is not blasphemous to recognize creativity in Creation.
: : : : : What is a few billion years to an all-powerful, infinite being?

: : : : Creavitity or poetry? Creativity in this context is vague to say the
: : : : least.

: : : : : : : Belief in God and His Son and the Holy Spiritas the Divine Trinity, the
: : : : : : : Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Death and Resurection of Jesus for our
: : : : : : : forgiveness of sins and hope of eternal life is based in faith. You don't
: : : : : : : prove faith. You believe. The same goes with reincarnation, Mohammad,
: : : : : : : Mosaic Law, The Dharmas, etc.

: : : : : : But that is the big thing of it. Faith. Many people are quite passionate
: : : : : : about "faith" and THAT is the big deal. Me, I'm passionate about science
: : : : : : and like the self correcting aspect of true science.

: : : : : Do you think it is impossible to be passionate about both?

: : : : Well if you like poetry and think of Creationism as such, no. But if you
: : : : think both are truth, then yes I think it impossible due to their mutually
: : : : exclusive aspects. Otherwise, it smacks as Orwellian "doublethink."

: : : My point is that it is not inconsistent to give God the credit for
: : : creating the universe (creating the wave function of the universe for
: : : those who follow philosophy based on the Quantum Theory), yet seek to
: : : understand the "how" of that creation. Theology is mostly interested in
: : : "why" while science delves into the "how."

: : But can't it be argued that "God" is all of what we simply just don't
: : know? As we learn more and more God changes in this context.

: You can argue that God is a stick if you want, however you would not be
: talking about the Judeo-Christain God.

Okay. I get theat their are guidelines to the Judeo-Christain God that
differ from other beliefs.

: : Theology is about faith. Science is about truth. If you can separate them
: : and it works for you, then who am I to say that it is bad? OTOH, I don't
: : want someone telling me that their faith is the truth.

: IMO, science and religion are orthogonal to a very large extent. If you
: are not religious, why would it bother you for someone who IS religious to
: tell you what he believes? For example, I am not a Buddhist, but if a
: Buddhist wants to tell me all about the Fundamental Truths of Buddhism, it
: does not bother me. In fact I'd be interested in his take on it. The
: same with Jews, Catholics, Russian Orthodox Chrisytians, Copts, Muslims,
: Seiks, Hindus, animists, Roman pagans, druids, wiccans, or whatever.
: Other people's religious beliefs (within reason, i.e. not the "God told
: me to kill you" beliefs) are not threatening to me.

: Why are they threatening to you?

No, no, I am not threatened by religous beliefs. In fact, I like a
pantheistic viewpoint and believe that that is more realistic as it
encompasses more of human thought than any single religion can. Besides
you left out Native America religions in your sample set above. :)

My point is that science is self-correcting and requires a sort of rigor
in thinking. That given a proof that differs from the accepted knowledge
on a subject, one must be willing to change their point of view in lieu of
the new evidence. Religion has no requirement like that.

Eric

: --
: --
: William "Dave" Thweatt
: Robert E. Welch Postdoctoral Fellow
: Chemistry Department
: Rice University
: Houston, TX
: ***@ruf.rice.edu
: ***@us.army.mil
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...