Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
All of this study is based on assuming things to be truth in the past, which they aren't.
Scientists are changing thier minds about a previous conclusions all the time.
consider the scientists on health... You don't know what to believe.
It's a matter of what you choose to believe, and that can change as you get more data.
But you can say music has evolved. In theory.
Listen to a Gregorian chant. Then a Mozart sonata. Tell me if you think music has evolved.
I am sorry, I didn'trealize that you are such a highly intelligent being, that the rest of us are not capable of a coherent thought or discussion with you..
I prefer Bach, Brahms and Haydn.
Gregorian chants are really cool, but Mozart had a different concept than Gregorian...
(It's a matter of what you choose to believe, and that can change as you get more data.)
Agreed again! I've been saying for a bit that philosophy trumps both science and religion. Science and religion may influence one's philosophy, but when it comes down to it, a person must choose what they believe.
While that definition is in the dictionary, it is not the one scientists use in this instance. I would guess you are selecting that definition because you want to discredit the theory of evolution--"Its only a theory [guess]."
Please examine these definitions again:
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
(The Photo Album Concept is pretty close)
I've got to give Metmom credit for that one.
Way to go Metmom!!!!!
I have to go get some stuff done, but I'll be back later.
Troll-festival-deluxe placemarker.
The #1129 is GONE!
What didit say??
In retrospect, I think I should have used less, or blockquoted the thing, because it looks too much like a series of new posts rather than an attempt to show past ones.
I don't remember even mentioning creationism or Christians in the post.
|
One observation might be that those countries where religion has suppressed science they remain poor. The US has been the exception but we are a maturing countries. If you are old enough to remember the differences of science and religious were of little concern until the late 70's. Since then with TV and the growth of fundamentalism science has been attacked. Many would discredit it in the schools and restrict knowledge. The number of students studying science has dropped and our world standing of high school performance in math and science has dropped from number one to 24 out of the top 25 countries in the world. We graduate but 70 thousand PH D's in math and science a year and more than half seek opportunity in other countries. China graduates 500 thousand a year and India another 300 thousand. Our students rank first in high esteem and are taught that their faith and belief and opinion is the most important thing. Look at the Muslims, for centuries they suppressed science, allowed no new knowledge, think themselves superior, and allow no other beliefs than their own. They have high esteem but live in a decayed society and a IQ mean of 89. the US mean IQ has decreased from 100 to 97 in the last 25-30 years. There is a hard core movement to establish a religion of state in the US and it has had some success. A republic or democracy is still a relative new thing considering history. Before the early middle ages most Monarchies had a religion of state and the progress of science was restricted. Nothing could be taught without the approval of religion and any opposing could be put to death. Religion does not seek new knowledge, it seeks to protect it's philosophy of faith and belief with little or no change. Science is always a threat because a increase in knowledge forces changes in faith and belief. More change has been forced on religion in the last 400 years than in all the years before that is of our history. Thoughts of cars, planes, going to the moon, TVs, radios, bathing suits and numerous other things would have made one a heretic and eligible for the death penalty. Thats it for now. |
Define scientific fact. present the fact and the evidence.
But you've accepted the Darwin Fundie religion without question so you wouldn't know that, would you?
Religion is philosophy. Evolution is science and is both a fact and theory.
Doesn't sound like you know what evolution or speciation is.
Educate me by stating your definition of both.
Your cut & paste Darwin Fundie Talking Points don't impress me either.
Why would anyone try to impress one already impressed by their own opinion.
Only a Fundie would blindly listen to his leaders.
What are the names and teachings of these leaders. I missed them.
Funny how people like you accuse other people of being pseudofundimental! Where'd you get that word? Public school?
Definitions of pseudo on the Web:
(often used in combination) not genuine but having the appearance of; "a pseudo esthete"; "pseudoclassic" imposter: a person who makes deceitful pretenses
No wonder you think evolution is true.
I don't think evolution is true. True is a term used by philosophy. I observe evolution is a material fact. Darwin did not use the term evolution. He used the terms change and difference. Evolution is a later term to incorporate both. Odd that your other than public school education did not cover basic science and definitions. Evolution is defined as ongoing change that exists in populations whether by nature or reproduction.
Get a picture of your parents, look in the mirror, if there is any difference no matter how small some evolution or change has occurred. However if there is no difference, change, or evolution you are a clone! Thats your position that ongoing change is not true and does not occur. 6.7 billion people would disagree that they are all the same and are cloned. You are a phenomenon and you should publish your cloning.
Racist, punk giraffe's with signs:
Hint: 'Some' pressures NEVER existed.
Myself?
Gimme a good French Onion ANY day!
(Like them in a bread bowl from Panera's.... YUM!)
Wish I could say this....
Sniff.....
Find two that agree they have no differences.
"If there are any differences no matter how small then some change or evolution has occurred."
nonsense, evolution has not occurred. Traits have to exist within the gene pool to be passed down. non existent traits such as eyes didnt exist according to your theory so how were they passed down?
Evolution is defined as ongoing change whether by reproduction or nature. Traits are part of reproduction. I explained no theory. thats your nonsense. The fact and theory of evolution has already been explined.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.