Posted on 12/18/2004 5:56:30 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Oops, I meant to ping you folks to post #900.
You can explain the workings of an internal combustion engine without resorting to any supernatural speculation. You also know that GM, Ford, Honda, etc., built that engine by the fact that is inside a Chevrolet, Ford, Honda, etc. vehicle and has a VIN imprinted on the engine block that identifies the manufacturer. If the natural universe can be likewise explained entirely without supernatural speculation, and if there is no indication of any creator, as there would be with an internal combustion engine, would it not be more reasonable to assume that the universe has no creator? The theistic scientist would then be holding to a contradictory position: accepting the picture of a universe that provides no evidence of a supreme being yet believing in such a being.
Not in *my* experience... Try reading the whole thread, you'll see all *sorts* of BS that "Fundies" have bought wholesale. For just one example, Havoc believes the BS that the skin and bones of the same mammoth have been radiometrically dated to dates 20,000 years apart (or 30,000, his claim keeps changing), even *after* it has been pointed out to him that the primary source was clearly talking about parts from two *different* animals, *and* that Havoc's "Fundie" source was grossly incompetent (e.g. one of Hovind's claimed "mammoth" specimens was an *ox* in the primary source which Hovind himself pointed to in "support" of his claims about mammoths...)
And this is, unfortunately, all too typical of "Fundies" who attempt to attack evolution.
But you seem to be trying to imply that evolutionary biology is "BS" -- please state a few of your reasons for thinking so, and provide support for them (citations would be nice). Let's determine whether you yourself have correctly described evolutionary biology as "BS" -- or whether you have "bought BS too easily" yourself by making the mistake of reading too many goofy creationist sources.
That conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from your premise.
This from some googled site about Wallace, the Spiritualist...
Alfred Russel Wallace on Spiritualism, Man, and Evolution: An Analytical Essay
and this
(The article below and the introductory comments were taken from Charles H. Smith's website at http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/ This oft-reprinted letter to the Editor appeared in "The Times" (London) of 4 January 1873.)
~~~"HAVING BEEN named by several of your correspondents as one of the scientific men who believe in spiritualism, you will perhaps allow me to state briefly what amount of evidence has forced the belief upon me. I began the investigation about eight years ago, and I esteem it a fortunate thing that at that time the more marvellous phenomena were far less common and less accessible than they are now, because I was led to experiment largely at my own house, and among friends whom I could trust, and was able to establish to my own satisfaction, by means of a great variety of tests, the occurrence of sounds and movements not traceable to any known or conceivable physical cause. Having thus become thoroughly familiar with these undoubtedly genuine phenomena, I was able to compare them with the more powerful manifestations of several public mediums, and to recognize an identity of cause in both by means of a number of minute but highly characteristic resemblances. I was also able, by patient observation, to obtain tests of the reality of some of the more curious phenomena which appeared at the time, and still appear to me, to be conclusive. To go into details as to those experiences would require a volume, but I may, perhaps, be permitted briefly to describe one, from notes kept at the time, because it serves as an example of the complete security against deception which often occurs to the patient observer without seeking for it.
A lady who had seen nothing of the phenomena asked me and my sister to accompany her to a well-known public medium. We went, and had a sitting alone in the bright light of a summer's day. After a number of the usual raps and movements our lady friend asked if the name of the deceased person she was desirous of communicating with could be spelt out. On receiving an answer in the affirmative, the lady pointed successively to the letters of a printed alphabet while I wrote down those at which three affirmative raps occurred. Neither I nor my sister knew the name the lady wished for, nor even the names of any of her deceased relatives; her own name had not been mentioned, and she had never been near the medium before. The following is exactly what happened, except that I alter the surname, which was a very unusual one, having no authority to publish it. The letters I wrote down were of the following kind:- y n r e h n o s p m o h t. After the first three - y n r - had been taken down, my friend said, "This is nonsense, we had better begin again." Just then her pencil was at e, and raps came, when a thought struck me (having read of, but never witnessed a similar occurrence) and I said "Please go on, I think I see what is meant." When the spelling was finished I handed the paper to her, but she could see no meaning in it till I divided it at the first h, and asked her to read each portion backwards, when to her intense astonishment the name "Henry Thompson" came out, that of a deceased son of whom she had wished to hear, correct in every letter. Just about that time I had been hearing ad nauseam of the superhuman acuteness of mediums who detect the letters of the name the deluded visitors expect, notwithstanding all their care to pass the pencil over the letters with perfect regularity. This experience, however (for the substantial accuracy of which as above narrated I vouch), was and is, to my mind, a complete disproof of every explanation yet given of the means by which the names of deceased persons are rapped out. Of course, I do not expect any sceptic, whether scientific or unscientific, to accept such facts, of which I could give many, on my testimony, but neither must they expect me, nor the thousands of intelligent men to whom equally conclusive tests have occurred, to accept their short and easy methods of explaining them.
If I am not occupying too much of your valuable space I should like to make a few remarks on the misconceptions of many scientific men as to the nature of this inquiry, taking the letters of your correspondent Mr. Dircks as an example. In the first place, he seems to think that it is an argument against the facts being genuine that they cannot all be produced and exhibited at will; and another argument against them, that they cannot be explained by any known laws. But neither can catalepsy, the fall of meteoric stones, nor hydrophobia be produced at will; yet these are all facts, and none the less so that the first is sometimes imitated, the second was once denied, and the symptoms of the third are often greatly exaggerated, while none of them are yet brought under the domain of strict science; yet no one would make this an argument for refusing to investigate these subjects. Again, I should not have expected a scientific man to state, as a reason for not examining it, that spiritualism "is opposed to every known natural law, especially the law of gravity," and that it "sets chemistry, human physiology, and mechanics at open defiance;" when the facts simply are that the phenomena, if true, depend upon a cause or causes which can overcome or counteract the action of these several forces, just as some of these forces often counteract or overcome others; and this should surely be a strong inducement to a man of science to investigate the subject.
While not laying any claim myself to the title of "a really scientific man," there are some who deserve that epithet who have not yet been mentioned by your correspondents as at the same time spiritualists. Such I consider the late Dr. Robert Chambers, as well as Dr. Elliotson, Professor William Gregory, of Edinburgh; and Professor Hare, of Philadelphia - all unfortunately deceased; while Dr. Gully, of Malvern, as a scientific physician, and Judge Edmonds, one of the best American lawyers, have had the most ample means of investigation; yet all these not only were convinced of the reality of the most marvellous facts, but also accepted the theory of modern spiritualism as the only one which would embrace and account for the facts. I am also acquainted with a living physiologist of high rank as an original investigator, who is an equally firm believer.
In conclusion I may say that, although I have heard a great many accusations of imposture, I have never detected it myself; and, although a large proportion of the more extraordinary phenomena are such, that, if impostures, they could only be performed by means of ingenious apparatus or machinery, none has ever been discovered. I consider it no exaggeration to say, that the main facts are now as well established and as easily verifiable as any of the more exceptional phenomena of nature which are not yet reduced to law. They have a most important bearing on the interpretation of history, which is full of narratives of similar facts, and on the nature of life and intellect, on which physical science throws a very feeble and uncertain light; and it is my firm and deliberate belief that every branch of philosophy must suffer till they are honestly and seriously investigated, and dealt with as constituting an essential portion of the phenomena of human nature."~~~
Thus the fruit of flapdoodles.
How very convenient of your personal thesaurus.
Tell that to democrats.
Whatever, it's all from the chapter on The Weather Factory
Get ready, next they're going to call you some big wurd
People who say crazy things are acting crazy. This isn't the leap you imagine it to be.
Apparently, you believe then that faith is unnecessary for a belief in God. After all, if you could show that God existed via looking at physical evidence, then there's no need for faith. But conversely, if you can't show that God exists by looking at physical evidence, then God has no place in the methodological practice of science. The reason that I personally do believe in God has more to do with faith than with the evidence. Doesn't faith still mean believing without any evidence for that belief. That is not science, but that is where a belief in God comes from. It is not contradictory for someone to believe in God, yet to assume that this belief is not necessary to study physical evidence. You simply are considering what can be learned from considering the evidence without any reference to God. Think of it as kind of a game, ie. let's ignore any belief in God, and see what we can learn ONLY by looking at physical evidence. In a way it's similar to modern mathematics. At one time, for example, in geometry, mathematicians only studied geometry that seemed to have some correspondence with reality, ie. Euclidean geometry. For example, if you draw a line and a point, you can only draw one line parallel to the given line. However, it makes perfect sense to study a geometry where you could draw no lines parallel to a given line. You would just have trouble drawing or visualizing it, but it causes no logical contradiction. You could similarly have a geometry where you could draw an infinite number of straight lines through the point parallel to the given line. The point is that geometry became sort of a self contained exercise; anything outside of the geometry itself was irrelevant. Similarly, supernatural phenomena such as God lie outside of the scope of science and as such are irrelevant to science. BTW, I don't believe that you can look at physical evidence and explain the universe without reference to a Creator. Evolution doesn't attempt to do so. Even big bang theory really doesn't do this; it just pushes the question back a bit. What exactly caused the creation of the universe? Why did the big bang happen the way it did? Why are the laws of nature and the values of the fundamental constants what they are? These questions, I believe have yet to be fully explained by science, and may never be.
So what? Who cares?
Because..... it's Spookay!
If you say so. But what does it have to do with evolution?
I don't understand what you are saying here. Anyhow, Best Regards. BJN
What does the chaos theory have to do with it?
I never said anything about chaos theory. What does that bit about Wallace have to do with evolution?
It's clear that you guys don't want to or can't, answer anything that disproves evolution. That's the point.
Nobody asked me anything about chaos theory, so I guess you're just making that up. Why won't you answer the question of what that bit about Wallace has to do with evolution? I know you didn't post it, but your friend seems suddenly reticent...
Chance is the pseudonym of God when He did not want to sign. Anatole France
Think about what, answering the question? Okay, well, while you're thinking about it, your friend, if she is feeling a bit braver, can answer for herself why she found it relevant, since her chevalier has obviously abandoned his duty of defending her honor.
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.