Posted on 06/06/2005 2:49:58 PM PDT by CHARLITE
It did HIS!!!!
1 & 2 & 3 = ????
Regarding this interjection, Martin Gardner writes:
"Darwin himself, as a young biologist aboard H.M.S. Beagle, was so thoroughly orthodox that the ship's officers laughed at his propensity for quoting Scripture. Then 'disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate,' he recalled, 'but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.' The phrase 'by the creator,' in the final sentence of the selection chosen here, did not appear in the first edition of Origin of Species. It was added to the second edition to conciliate angry clerics. Darwin later wrote, 'I have long since regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process." [stress added] (Gardner, 1984)
Why would be jealous of me? You are not making any sense.
If you get your jollies doodling little drawings - to quote BT Express: "do it till you're satisfied"
His posts at: http://www.DUFUS.DORK.com
The link doesn't work??? You mean that web site was taken down??? RATS!!!
I guess it was a failed attempt at sarcasm on my part.
1 & 2 & 3 = 3
It is only through your godless materialism that you discount, a priori, the Angelic Push (AP) theory of gravity, which posits that gravity is really Angels pushing things here and there. AP theory is scientific! Teach the controversy!
I like it. Think out of the box! Don't be afraid to explore alternative theories. Stop the censorship!
01 & 10 & 11 =
00 in AND gates
11 if using OR gates
You're right....
Here is more from that same article directly after your quote. Taken from :http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9481_darwin_prosecuted_review_of_j_12_15_1993.asp
Darwinism is a mechanism by which part of this spectrum of history may be explained, in whole or in part. Darwinism attempts to explain organic evolution, at least in major part, by natural selection. But Darwinism is only one possible explanation for the history of life. If Darwinism were to be discovered not to explain organic evolution, this would have nothing in the universe (literally) to do with whether stellar or galactic evolution took place -- or even whether organic evolution took place...
The Origin of Life is Not the Same as Evolution
The Big Bang Is Not the Same as Evolution
Like the scientific creationists, Johnson confuses the origin of life and the Big Bang (the origin of the universe) with evolution. This is rather like confusing starting up the car's engine with driving away. It is necessary to start the engine to go anywhere, but there is nothing inherent about starting the car that tells you whether you are going to work, or to the corner store, or just idling in the driveway. The origin of life and the Big Bang are both interesting scientific problems, and, as they do with any scientific problem, scientists are attempting to explain them with natural rather than supernatural explanations.
When we speak of evolution in these debates, we are concerned with biological evolution only, as was Darwin. The use of the word 'evolution' in the other disciplines means 'to change over time' and was borrowed from biology.
You are purposely equivocating here; just as you are quote mining.
Great nit picking! You a programmer?
"It is only through your godless materialism that you discount, a priori, the Angelic Push (AP) theory of gravity, which posits that gravity is really Angels pushing things here and there."
Apparently you missed my point entirely. The point is that gravity is an equation, and the equation is the same no matter what theory is attached to it, be it your comical angelic push, some sort of laws of attraction, or mass warping space.
The equation for gravity is experimentally verifiable -- the reason for the equation matters little except influence possible future directions.
History, however, is full of unique events. Because of their uniqueness, it is impossible to test historical theories the same way you can test scientific theories. Therefore, they are based more on philosophy than experimentation. The history of the world that includes universal common ancestry is based on naturalistic assumptions.
"The roll of the dice in Vegas aren't repeatable. But "dice theory" I'm sure is studied in that town and is a real science. I assure you that dice, and odds, exist."
This is silly. Dice experiments certainly are repeatable. The fact that individual rolls don't proceed in a specific sequence is irrelevant to the fact that the theory of dice is quite repeatable.
However, if I said, "yesterday I rolled X, Y, and Z", how would you test that claim, specifically, except by historical records? What if there are multiple historical records and they conflict? If I tolled you I rolled the same number every time for 30 rolls in a row, would you believe me or would you say that I was playing with loaded dice?
When the evolutionist sees something that unrealistic, they just assume that since the dice have not been weighted when they played the game, the dice have never nor could ever be weighted. The creationists, on the other hand, know the dice-roller, and know that he has been known to load the dice on occasion.
"the theory of gravity, which leads to conclusions about the motion of the planets the existence of vast regions of microgravity where there is no predominate "down", on the other hand is something I doubt you have directly observed."
Is it reduceable to an equation? Has the equation been tested? If so, then it counts. If not, then it is unverified. Unverified theories are very useful -- it is hard to proceed in any direction without an idea of where you are trying to go -- but it is not public unless it can be reduced to testable equations which have passed scrutiny.
No, I was making a joke.
The point is that gravity is an equation,
Wrong. Gravity is a force, which can be described by an equation.
History, however, is full of unique events. Because of their uniqueness, it is impossible to test historical theories the same way you can test scientific theories.
Historical sciences are tested by formulating hypotheses and examining the evidence. These "unique" historical events leave evidence of themselves, and the science is the process of dealing with this evidence. They are tested differently than physics, but they are no less science.
Creationists have a wacky view of science, that anything but physics and some chemistry isn't science because you can't do Larry-Labcoat twelfth-grade science experiments on them. It is sort of a reverse Physics envy. Just because you can't pull "the history of the evolution of canids" into the lab doesn't make the study of the evolution of canids somehow not science.
Therefore, they are based more on philosophy than experimentation. The history of the world that includes universal common ancestry is based on naturalistic assumptions.
No, what you are doing is asking science to be something that it is not. You are saying that unless science is party religion, then it is merely philosophy. That's just stupid. The fact that science doesn't consider the long line of gods believed by humans throughout history--from Isis to Yahweh/Jehovah to Woden to Jupiter to Uhura Mazda to the invisible pink unicorn--and bases itself on naturalistic tenets, doesn't make science into "philosophy." It makes it "not religion."
"However, if I said, "yesterday I rolled X, Y, and Z", how would you test that claim, specifically, except by historical records? "
Actually, I find this a perfect analogy in support of evolution.
There are three dice on the table -- a 1, a 2, and a 3. You tell me you rolled them yesterday. And there they are, right in front of me. Why would I disbelieve you?
Same thing with the fossil record. There it is. Everywhere you look. Ones becoming twos, twos becoming threes.
Most people who really look can see the pattern. There is no real need to concoct an explanation like "the dice were arranged out of thin air one day in precisely that order."
"You are saying that unless science is party religion, then it is merely philosophy."
That was not my point. My point was that except for the equation-goverened parts of science, philosophy plays a large part of the role. As I mentioned, historical analysis has a lot to do with what someone thinks is credible. I did not say that religion will prevent science from becoming philosophy, I said that historical sciences brings in philosophy whether it wants to or not. The problem with evolution is that the ones who hold to a naturalistic philosophy simply say that their philosophy and none other should be used. There are multiple philosophies, and none of them are arrived at by science alone. Historical science is often philosophical interpretation masquerading as independent, public fact.
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.