Posted on 03/29/2006 1:47:22 PM PST by SampleMan
no scientist has ever claimed such a thing period
You've stumbled on a bizarre auditory and reading comprehension syndrome peculiar to antievolutionists. When someone says, "we know some things about evolution," or "we know this or that particular thing," they for some reason hear, "WE KNOW ALL; BOW DOWN BEFORE US!"
I know many scientists in this big old world that are no where near as you describe and practice proper science.
I didn't call you a troll. What I am getting at is your complete ignorance of how science properly works or you know how science works but want to manipulate the situation for whatever your goal is. And by the way there is this thing called peer review and repeat experimentation that keeps scientists in line.
Enough said
What I am getting at is your complete ignorance of how science properly works or you know how science works but want to manipulate the situation for whatever your goal is.
Is there a post of mine that you are referring to? I'm aware of how science properly works, and also aware of how it often works, and that the imperfections have proved self correcting overtime.
You appear peeved that I pointed out that people who so admire the objectivity of science can get worked up into name calling. I once saw a tenured professor stand up and call a colleague an idiot. It got much worse after they progressed to family origin.
I don't follow the manipulation charge. Is this referring to my prediction of post quality, or because I posted the ID thread at all? I thought I might get some meaningful, well spoken counterpoints and a lot of abuse. I think I've gotten two of the former. And I thanked both of them for their input.
When people see boogie men behind every bush, there is usually a reason. I dare say you are allowing yourself a bit of paranoia.
You actually bring up a good point. All cutting edge research in science, no matter what field they are in, contains such suppositions. This is the type of research that tends to make the news. Usually, when a press release is made, there are some solid facts about the subject while some further verification is necessary for many of the finer points. If it was all solidly known, it wouldn't be very cutting edge, would it?
By the time something makes it to the level of a good textbook on the subject (which can take years or even decades), though, there has been much more peer review of the subject, and much more verification & testing. This is not to say textbooks never make mistakes (even the best ones occasionally do), but that by the time the process has worked to this level, one can be assured that the central tenets of what one is reading are correct (in a reputable text, anyway).
Science always attempts to improve itself through time; theories that are broad in scope are almost never completely discarded (they don't need to be) - they are refined and brought into better focus. The basic core tenets of evolution, gradual change through time, have not changed since the time of Darwin. What we see now, though is positive identification and evidence that refine the detail of his theory in ways Darwin could never have dreamed.
It also is an (un?)fortunate fact, though, that science has become so complex that the finer details of the supporting evidence for theories take many, many hours of dedication and time to understand -- to those without the time and/or desire to do their homework on the subject, the results that science presents can indeed look like a potpourri of nonsense and proposition of faith, even though they aren't.
This is not to say textbooks never make mistakes (even the best ones occasionally do),
I know ONE textbook that has no mistakes in it.
What do you mean? The main phenomena being reported is asserted completely definitively. They say exactly what the phenomena is, when and where it occurs (in the lab, unobserved as yet in the cell but expected to occur there also) and the exact DNA sequence associated with the phenomena (not given in this popular article of course, but in the research paper).
They seem to state definitively everything that so warrants. What, specifically, do you think should have been stated definitively that wasn't? Or is your complaint entirely cynical and hypocritical (i.e. you would have made the accusation of dogmatic assertiveness with equal felicity if they did say more definitively)?
Evo articles are ALWAYS
full of if, could have, might have, may have,
might possibly be, etc etc etc.
Actually evolution is only mentioned one time in the article, in connection with the inference that this phenomena must not be deleterious, and is likely functional in some as yet unknown way, because otherwise evolution would have eliminated it.
So the one mention of evolution IS definite: evolution eliminates purely deleterious traits, so this one must be otherwise. Ironically it's all the questions about the design related functions of this phenomena (what precisely it does functionally, are there other phenomena of the same type, etc) that are -- however properly due to the need for further research -- couched in maybe's and possibly's.
One of the main reason I stay with
"Thus says The LORD"
No you don't. The LORD sayeth nothing whatever about computers and computer networks, for instance, but here you are.
Can they rule out DNA being hit (altered) by sub-atomic particles?
No you don't. The LORD sayeth nothing whatever about computers and computer networks, for instance, but here you are.
Weak very weak
" What do you mean? The main phenomena being reported is asserted completely definitively."
The title and the first paragraph say you are wrong.
"DNA ""could"" modify itself with no outside help, say biologists"
Spirals of DNA, once thought to be merely the passive memory banks that preserve life’s blueprints, ""may"" also actively modify themselves under certain conditions, according to Princeton University scientists.
Are "could and may" definitive words .
Listening to the crickets chirp while waiting for a citation for:
1) A post where I told someone to shut up
2) Any scientists who has ever said that everything there is to know about evolution is already known.
How am I wrong? Your quotes confirm exactly what I said: that the statements about design features of the DNA wrt this phenomena -- its role if any in the DNA, whether it is representative of similar phenomena, etc -- are couched (appropriately) in hypotheticals and uncertainties. By contrast the one statement regarding evolution -- that it would eliminate such a phenomena unless it provided some benefit -- is definitive.
Really?
You're wrong.
Read the three accounts of Peter's denial of Christ, then tell me which version got the genders and identities of the denial correct.
Also, much of the Bible is intended as allegory. You don't really hate your children do you? This is what Jesus literally demands in Luke 14:26.
There are errors of detail in the Bible, and what's more, the Bible is not a science text. It has no authority in that realm any more than it has authority as a phone book. Most of the science portrayed literally in the Bible is blatantly wrong.
Most of the science portrayed literally in the Bible is blatantly wrong.
Prove it
No thank you. That work has already been done; not my job to reinvent the wheel. Crack open a few intro-level science books and you can see the work that's been done over the last millenium or two for yourself.
You don't believe in all of the Bible literally. I don't know why you're so insistent on taking the first two chapters as verbatim fact.
Crack open a few intro-level science books
I will if you will crack open the Bible
and ask God to reveal the TRUTH to you.
Deal?
You don't believe in all of the Bible literally.
And you know this how?
Fine. I've already read it cover to cover and contemplated it all, but one could spend a lifetime doing so and not understand all its mysteries - maybe it's time for me to get back to reading it more often.
Truth by revelation is fine in spiritual matters, but please understand that science wouldn't get very far if it worked that way. When I have a spiritual or moral question, I'll look in a Bible. When I have a science question, I'll consult good science books.
I perused your homepage, by the way. Looks like you are blessed with a wonderful family - best of luck & blessings to you and them.
All you have to do is read the FR religion forum to realize that no sane person could claim to take everything in the Bible literally. No two people read things the same way, and the differences of interpretation are not trivial.
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.