Posted on 09/09/2007 5:17:43 AM PDT by PurpleMountains
Why is it that I often write about such subjects as Darwinism, liberalism, and the ACLU? It is because American society is engaged in a war between those who believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong – and those who hold more traditional views. Those who believe there is no such thing as right and wrong (whom Bill O’Reilly calls Secular-Progressives or SP’s) believe that the only thing that matters is what feels good, and that their behavior is nobody else’s business.
Although many people do not make the connection, this attitude and the behavior it promotes can be traced to Darwinian theory that we are all just accidental products of random happenings – in a straight line down to the dialectical materialism of Marx, Engels and Lenin – down to the communist and Nazi writings and exploits of Stalin, Mao and Hitler – and down to the ACLU and to modern liberalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Actually, Coyoteman is familiar with Behe's claims, and so am I.
The best efforts of Darwinists have not been able to counter his reports on the discoveries which do what I said, prove common descent and minor changes and disprove evolutionary creation of new forms and species.
Sure they have.
Let's put your faith in Behe to the test -- you tell me what you consider Behe's very strongest argument or "discovery" against evolutionary biology, and then I'll show you why it falls apart under examination.
Ah, yes, the old "creationism hasn't managed to come up with scientific evidence for creationism or against evolutionary biology over the past several thousand years, but by gosh, we're sure it'll triumph scientifically Real Soon Now, just you wait!"
Color me unimpressed with your progress so far. "ID" is the world's oldest dead-end hypothesis.
Many of Darwin’s “proofs” have been and continue to be discredited,
Such as? Warning: If you quote examples from creationist websites, you're bound to embarrass yourself by citing "examples" that are creationist misrepresentations instead of actual problems with evolution.
while Behe’s contentions become confirmed.
Again, feel free to give your very best example, so that we can see how well Behe's best hold up when put to the test.
As Coyoteman has already pointed out, "proof" is an impossible standard in the real world (it's only possible in artificial realms like mathematics). However, evolution has certainly been conclusively demonstrated to occur, and been directly observed to occur.
...which makes the rest of your rambling rather moot:
It is a theory.
Yes it is. It's a theory in the scientific sense, which is a much more rigorous thing than the meaning of the word "theory" in a non-scientific context.
An idea in someone's mind. A guess. A figment of one's imagination.
No, it is a scientific theory, which has been overwhelmingly affirmed by mountains of evidence across multiple independent cross-confirming lines. Deal with it.
Regardless of how strongly one believes said theory, a group of people believe said theory, or an entire population believes said theory, it is still a theory.
Yes, it is still an extremely well confirmed scientific theory.
Regardless of how much education one has, or years of experience in any area one has, their belief in said theory does not make it fact.
Their belief doesn't make it a fact, but their evidence for its reality does make it a fact.
It is still a theory.
It is both fact and theory.
That said theory is often discussed as fact, does not make it fact. It is still a theory.
Irrespective of how many articles, reports, research papers, theses, dissertations, and textbooks present said theory as though it were fact, it is still a theory.
You're confused if you think it must be one or the other. It is both fact and theory.
Attempting to present said theory as though it were fact is intellectually dishonest, if not outright fraudulent.
No, it's accurate, because it is, yet again, both fact and theory.
Science deals with things that are real, that can be proven via direct physical observation, or via their effects on physical things, as in the case of invisible things like gravity, electricity, light, infrared heat, sound waves, radio waves, etc; and laws such as physical laws, mathematical laws, etc.
And evolutionary biology.
Evolution has never been proven scientifically. No one has brought forth any physical evidence proving an occurrance of evolution.
Again, science does not deal in "proof", it deals in evidence and confirmation and validation. If you're still hung up on the misuse of the word "proof", read this.
Contrary to your misunderstanding, however, evolution has has indeed been validated scientifically, hundreds of thousands of times over during the past 150+ years, and countless people have "brought forth" physical evidence demonstrating the occurrence of evolution.
Support for evolution is comprised entirely of belief, conjecture, supposition, assumption, etc.
Nonsense, although I suppose it might look that way to someone completely ignorant of the vast evidence supporting evolutionary biology and the methods used to explore it.
I have no problem with evolution if it is ever proven.
It has been "proven", in the layman's loose meaning of the word proven, so I'm glad to hear that you have no problem with that.
Really? Where do you claim that Coyoteman was "attacking someone's belief in creation"? Perhaps you should either quote him actually doing so, or apologize for your false accusation.
Your belief in evolution is identical to their belief in creation. You are on no more solid ground in your belief of evolution, than they are in their belief of creation.
You are highly mistaken.
Neither have been proven scientifically.
Again, you are stuck on misusing the word "proven". However, evolution has certainly been scientifically validated countless times over, whereas not only has "creation" not been scientifically validated, but many of its specific claims have been found to be incompatible with the scientific evidence.
Throw up all the arguments and definitions you care to.
...and you'll continue to not bother to learn from it. Duly noted.
Science is science. It deals with things that actually exist, AND can be proven through observation.
Such as evolutionary processes.
Anything short of that is belief. Evolution is belief. Creation is belief.
No, evolution is a field of science. Creation is not.
From a purely scientific viewpoint, neither is more valid than the other, because neither have been proven scientifically.
Wrong again.
Got'cha!
I put the above statment in bold so everyone will see it.
Yes, we can see that he understands how science works, whereas you're still confused about it even after he helpfully provided reading material for you which would have cleared up your misunderstanding for you -- if you had bothered to actually read it.
You have totally discredited yourself with that statement.
You have that backwards.
Am I correct in my perception that you believe we as a society should accept unproven beliefs as fact?
That's not what he said. Please work on your reading comprehension and try again.
Would you have us cross the line into accepting myths, fantasies, and fairytales as fact? Had you lived 700 years ago, would you have believed, as most did at that time, that the earth is flat? ... and the sun revolves around the earth, as most believed at that time? When we abandon the requirement of scientific proof, we open Pandora's box. Any belief, regardless of how untrue, out of step with reality, irrational, wild, or fanatical it may be, can be widely accepted... and imposed on others. It is a frightening prospect that sends chills through a rational person. People of your mindset are DANGEROUS!
Actually, people who don't bother to read and understand what someone actually wrote before they go off on a rant are the "DANGEROUS" ones. Or at least silly.
Like he said, you really might benefit from responding to what he actually wrote instead of what you fantasize he said.
Show me your scientific proof of evolution, or go away. I’m not going to believe it merely because you believe it.
Okay, here you go. That's just a tiny sliver of the massive amount of evidence for evolution, but it'll get you started.
I can only wonder what other fantasies you believe.
Well, he fantasizes that he can educate those who aren't interested in learning anything, but everyone's entitled to at least one impossible dream.
You apparently don’t read very well either.
18 posted on 09/09/2007 11:01:08 PM CDT by gpk9
It's a bit disturbing to see you talking to yourself, but at least you're telling yourself the truth.
Ooookay...
Your tagline reveals more ignorance.
"Scientific evidence."
Evidence is not scientific. It is merely evidence.
"Scientific knowledge."
Knowledge is not scientific. It is merely knowledge.
Not too clear on the concept, I see.
Knowledge may be obtained through scientific process, but the knowledge itself is not scientific.
If you want to believe that, you go right ahead.
"Scientific" is a process, not a thing.
Let me be the first to introduce you to the concept of "adjective".
"Scientific" refers to a process of re-creating a phenomenon in a controlled environment.
That's *one* way to go about the scientific method, yes, but contrary to your misunderstanding it is hardly the only one. Here, educate yourself: Explaining the Scientific Method.
When a phenomenon is re-created in a controlled environment, the re-creation is proof of the phenomenon, obtained through scientific process.
Again, that still isn't "proof". You keep using that word -- I don't think it means what you think it means. </InigoMontoya>
Evolution has not been re-created nor observed in a controlled environment.
Sure it has (1, 2, etc.). It has also been validated in most of the other many ways that the scientific method is applicable.
Neither has creation.
Can't argue with you there.
Hence, both are unproven theories.
Wrong.
Ah, resorting to TRYING to WIN by CAPITALIZATION, eh? I regret to inform you that this doesn't actually improve the credibility of your presentation. Quite the contrary, in fact.
As for your various misconceptions and misunderstandings in your above BIG LETTER POST, they've already been dealt with in prior posts in this thread. Please *read* them this time, attempt to understand them, then try again if you manage to come up to speed.
>>Why is it that I often write about such subjects as Darwinism, liberalism, and the ACLU?<<
I would submit that if you don’t distinguish between evolution and Darwinism and don’t see the vast differences between Darwinism, liberalism and the ACLU then it isn’t that you are losing but that you have handicapped to potential of your effort,.
Aparently you and Coyoteman are products of the “new” defintion of science, where conclusions obtained through analysis and deduction are considered proof.
... said “new” defintion having been developed by people who really want to believe something that cannot be proven through true scientific process.
It is called “preponderance of evidence.” Pulling together lots of evidence YOU believe supports your theory.
It is the cart before the horse. It is a case of wanting to believe a theory to be fact, and diligently looking around for enough evidence to convince yourself that your theory is valid.
It is saying “I have concluded that K is true, and I’m citing A and B to support my conclusion.”
It is still only your conclusion, your opinion, your belief, which doesn’t prove anything.
Perponderance of evidence is one of two methods of PERSUASION used in the legal arena. The other is evidence beyond beyond any reasonable doubt.
Preponderance of evidence is the weaker of the two. It is considered less “solid” than evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, hence it is limited to civil cases. Criminal cases require evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.
Neither are scientific. Both are methods of PERSUASION used in legal cases where the event alledged to have occurred cannot be re-created.
Being able to re-create the event alledged to have occurred is the scientific standard... perhaps until recent times.
Nonetheless, re-creating the alledged event is still the requirement for absolute unequivocal proof.
Anything less than that is analysis and conclusion, in other words merely your opinion, which you may attempt to PERSUADE others into, but it doesn’t PROVE anything.
Persuasion is not proof.
In the case of evolution, I’m holding to the scientific standard. Re-create the event in a sufficiently controlled environment, and I’ll believe it.
I add another requriement. Evolutionary features must sustain through three subsequent generations. Why? Because sustanance through only one generation is proof of mutation, not evolution.
I have the same standard for creation. Demonstrate a creation event in a sufficiently controlled environment, and I’ll believe it.
P.S. I add a third requirement for evolution. Evolutionary features must be unique from all other features. They cannot be copies of an existing feature.
Examples: Legs must exist where no legs existed before. Wings must exist where no wings existed before. Gills must exist where no gills existed before. Lungs must exist where no lungs existed before. You get the point.
cm:”Proof has no place in science.”
From the guy who also has stated that science is not about truth(either).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838204/posts?page=93#93
How many time will you repeat that lie?
The true science of probability has utterly demolished any possibility of evolution being any more than a foolish hallucination.
Preponderance of evidence is the weaker of the two. It is considered less “solid” than evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, hence it is limited to civil cases. Criminal cases require evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.
Neither are scientific. Both are methods of PERSUASION used in legal cases where the event alledged to have occurred cannot be re-created."
Your ignorance of the law is as profound as your ignorance of science.
From the guy who also has stated that science is not about truth(either).
Laugh it up, but until you can come up with something better than a drive-by snipe I'll continue to follow these definitions on Cal Tech's website.
From the article A Glossary of Frequently Misused or Misunderstood Physics Terms and Concepts.
Proof. A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof. The colloquial meaning of ‘proof’ causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician’s meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law." Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of…
Truth. This is a word best avoided entirely in physics except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.
This is a strawman. No serious thought has ever produced this conclusion. No one will propose relativity to mean this.
In other words, you accept evolution as it is actually taught by biologists, but reject the Hollywood caricature. That's reasonable.
In real life, novel features are not visible in one generation and seldom in a million generations. Changes are copies with barely discernible variations.
Your opinion, nothing more.
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.