Posted on 04/29/2008 10:20:32 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Postmodernism At Work
The following two statements are parts of comments made on the Free Republic forum in response to Pamela Hewitt's "Problems of Evolution."
"Nothing in Science is ever “proven”, just provisionally accepted pending further data." (—allmendream)
All science is tentative, and nothing is ever proved! (—Coyoteman)
Normally, I would not bother with such mindless statements, but they just happen to perfectly exemplify the post-modernist nonsense that is being taught in today's colleges and universities. It is why we are living in the age of gullibility. Do not suppose this is just ignorance, however. These things are being taught with a purpose. The idea is, if you convince people nothing is ever certain, proved, or absolute, you can then put over just anything and call it science.
If "nothing in science is ever proven:"
I must assume these two have "living wills" specifying that cardioversion or defibrillation is not to be used on them since the principle of using electricity to convert a fibrillaing heart to a sinus rhythm has never been proved.
I am going to feel very sorry for these two if they ever need an operation, since the efficacy of anesthesia (once a great scientific controversy) has never been proved.
And they must really be missing out on all those television programs and phone calls transmitted by satellites launched into orbit around the earth's equator at a distance of about 22,300 miles which maintain a stationary position over the earth, by maintaining an orbital speed of approximately 6000 miles per hour, because, according to them, the physical principles such satellites are based on have never been proved.
They must only use electricity if it does not come from nuclear power plants, since the scientific principles describing a sustained chain nuclear reaction have never been proved. (Maybe they use no electricity at all, since they are sure the theory of combustion and Ohm's law have never been proved either.)
Nor must they use computers, or any other electronic devices that would not and could not work if the theories of electronics and quantum mechanics they are based on were not proved. They must avoid all Sky Scrapers because the laws of physics which are the basis of their engineering from the materials used to the structural design would fail if those physical principles were mere unproven hypotheses which, according to them, they are.
I do not know what planet these two live on, but on this planet the principle of an electric current being generated simply by moving a magnet in a coil of wire discovered by Michael Faraday, who was considered a charlatan by his contemporaries, has been proved. The unbelieved assertions by Nikola Tesla and Guglielmo Marconi that wireless communication is possible, has been proved.
What kind of demented mind can insist that nothing in science has been proved? One that assumes things without evidence, based on nothing more than the fact someone does not accept their particular faith. Here is the evidence (a concept totally foreign to such second-hand minds).
"Being a nurse doesn't QUALIFY one, in and of itself, to make an academic argument on Evolution or Genetics. ... Nothing better than an educated layman."
The fact that the "nurse" happens to be a degreed geneticist who has both worked in the field and lectured in it as well, these dimwits did not bother to discover. Evidence is not something they care about, since their cherished faith is being threatened by objective questions their little minds are incapable of answering.
They are dripping with hubris and patent snobbery, exactly like those "scientists" who were publishing papers proving heavier-than-air human flight was impossible while two laymen, who were obviously not educated well enough to learn what they were doing was "scientifically" impossible, were too busy flying to notice. According to these two jokers, the possibility of heavier-than-air human flight has never been proved. They're still waiting for, "further data."
If you believe nothing in science has been proved, it makes it easy to swallow totally made up stories such as the following:
"Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years;" [From Rutgers University]
What's the difference between "unequivocally established" and "proved?" In normal English, even as spoken by scientists, there is no difference; but these story tellers can always say they never said it was "proved" we all came from a common ancestor. It's meant to deceive and gain unquestioned acceptance.
And it's pure fiction. There is no way such a thing could possibly be established. If evolution could happen once, there is nothing in reason or evidence that even suggests it could not happen more than once or even hundreds or thousands of times; but it's happening more than once would not fit their story, so just ignore that fact and present your story as, "unequivocally established," and all the gullible academics will swallow it whole.
"Arguing FAITH is silly; and since no one is going to change his/her beliefs over the threads, they seem counter-productive--unless the "product" is self-gratification." [excerpt]
I don't go there.
I've actually seen quite a bit of Evolutionist dogma here on FR and elsewhere.
-Jesse
I was mostly referring to the counter productive futility of the nearly identical repeat dogfights that get replayed almost to the letter on each new thread.
So I guess it was a lousy comparison on my part.
I would take him up on it. I have challenged Allmendream to debate a number of scientists, and when it looks like it might happen he backs out every time. I doubt very much Soliton is a scientist seeing how he doesn’t even have the wherewithal to write his own stuff, and instead choses to borrow the work of others without attribution or even quotation marks. Allmendream, on the other hand, is a low-level scientist who likes to pick fights with novices, but when faced with the prospect of debating pedigreed scientists, he goes running for the hills faster than Richard Dawkins or PZ Meyers can renig on a movie release.
PS The offer still stands, Allmendream. You have agreed to two debates, both of which you backed out of. Peter Duesberg still stands ready to tear you limb from limb re: AIDS, and it shouldn’t be too much trouble to find a Creation or an ID scientist to expose the non-scientific/religious doctrines of the Temple of Darwin for all to see.
If you had brought that in, oh, say round post #7, it would have saved everyone a lot of haranguing.
;)
Sorry, haven’t followed these threads for a while. Still trying to decide whether I want to lock horns with the Temple of Darwin fanatics again. It’s mostly a waste of time, except of course for the edification I get from learning new ways to expose the phony Darwinian religion they call science.
Yup, crazy waste of time.
It can be kinda fun though and may be of interest to the lurkers.
It can be fun for a while. If Allmendream re-agrees (and actually follows through) to the previously proposed debates, I think I just might be able to see the fun in it again. Don’t hold your breath...
Sometimes I forget the quotes. This isn’t a peer review publication. I’d debate any of your dufuses on the merites of ID. It’s an automatic win. I would also take the time to put in all the quotation marks.
Ask your scientist to address this. What empirical evidence do you have for the existance of a designer and what is its origin? Describe what characteristics you believe this designer has to have. What tools /methodologies did the designer use? When did it do it’s designing? Please propose an experiment to test for the existance of the designer.
Your debate would be nothing more than stating and restating “Things are complex so they had to be designed” with no supporting evidence. Then they will toss out long-winded criticisms of “macro-evolution” ignoring all of the experiments that have provided incontovertible evidence for “micro-evolution” in the lab, even though evidence for micro-evolution supports the hypothesis for Macro-evolution too. They will ask for examples of intermediate forms in the fossil record. I will provide several examples. They will ignore them. I will provide proof of macro-evolution of one species into another and they will say “It’s still a bird”. They will switch to human evolution and I will offer genetic data that not only demonstrates that Humans and Chimps have common ancestors, but can tell us how much evolution has taken place, and give us a good idea of when the split occured. They will change the subject and say that cells are so complex that if you remove one tiny bit it dies, and I will provide examples of genomes without cell structure, and cells without nuclei.
IDers do not follow the rules of debate, or the rules of science. They offer nothing. They attack science because it threatens their religion and then lie about their motivation. This is why most sane people won’t debate IDers. IDers are basically dishonest.
Have the courtesy to ping someone when you mention them in a post
Nice to see you again GGG. We don't give pedigrees in Science. I am a section head for a major pharmaceutical company. Dawkins and Myers didn't renege (they couldn't) they just complained that the movie makers lied about the title and intent of the movie. I don't pick fights, I try to give the current understanding of the subject, as my posting history with you would indicate I am polite and helpful when I feel a poster is genuinely curious, and sarcastic and caustic when I feel I am dealing with a fool.
Anyway you are confused and your attacks are ungrounded. You are completely off base, and considering our polite exchanges in the past, quite rude.
Someone posts something brainless and apparently indefensible under the rubric of their qualifications, and I am picking on the mentally handicapped and uneducated to point it out (while being ‘postmodern’ as well)? And I suppose I am picking on someone who is “not here”, but other than enjoying speaking of herself in the third person; she is here.
==I believe it was js### who agreed to debates with conditions that could not be met (closed thread or some such).
Actually, you agreed to a debate, and then backed out:
Allmendream: I think any “Scientist” on your side (who you haven’t frog marched off to prison) would be far too busy debating the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY including the vast majority of those who study retrovirus, to have the time to debate us.
Me: I found one that isn’t tied up. Are you game?
Allmendream: Sure, why not? I am not an expert on virus’s or HIV, nor would I represent myself as such (although no doubt you will), but I know enough to read the literature on the subject of a virus that reproduces within helper T cells in immune compromised patients with low helper T counts and high viral counts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945222/posts?q=1&;page=151#167
Me: Let’s work out this debate thing first, and then we can return to codes upon codes.
Me: What happened to the debate re: AIDS? Creation vs. Evolution? Etc? You have suddenly gone silent. What gives?
Allmendream (who resorts to insults when cornered): Really not that interested in the granola eating anti corporate fringe that believe the FDA and Biologists are in cahoots to kill people. I know it agrees with your conspiracy fantasies of cabals of Scientists up to no good, but it doesn’t comport to any reality I know so I have limited interest.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941583/posts?q=1&;page=151#155
So bring it on. Is the subject to be HIV and AIDS or “cdesign proponentist”? What are the “rules” of this “debate”? Your pedigreed pet Scientist is free to post anything they want and invite me to critique it. I am not standing in anyones way and am not afraid to present what I know on the subject; but as I pointed out I am not an expert on either virus or HIV and would be relying entirely upon the body of knowledge that your “expert” has already rejected.
“I forgot” lol
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.