The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[f.Christian]

Evolution...Plastic science---morphed for the crippled---a ramp-lift-van---crutches--subsidies/grants!

Govt. assistance...food stamps/welfare---special judicial aid---recognition for the academically--mentally deprived!

A monopoly---PATENT via USSC!

[Quila]

Selective perception is necessary to atheism.

No, a lack of perception is. Either that or lack of the habit of perceiving what is not there.

One day you will stand in Judgement before God.

And one day you will stand in Judgement before the Invisible Pink Unicorn, unbeliever, and be sentenced to eternity in the Great Manure Pile.

That is how your preaching sounds to me.

[Quila]

Well, that's different. Surely we cannot doubt Robin Williams, one of the greatest scientists of this or any other century!

If you're going to resort to ad hominem again, I'd thought I'd point out a better, less assailable, source than a drugged-out musician. On the other hand, if you'd seen the act, he is somewhat taking your position (platypus as a joke on Darwin).

[Quila]

There is not one now either

In an attack on evolution, he finally admits that both creation and ID are not scientific.

[Quila]

Being a non-evolutionist, I have a very highly developed BS meter.

Being a non-religionist, so do I.

[Quila]

Definitions are proof of nothing.

Definition is everything:

• We present you with an orange according to the definition of what is an orange
• You then tell us it is not an orange because it does not fit the definition of an apple
• We then remind you of what the definition of an orange is, and that we're talking about oranges, not apples

[Quila]

Henry Adams characterized himself a disproof against evolution. BTW - he thought that Darwinism was just another passing fancy.

You may be right. He apparently was dumb enough to equate the two.

[Quila]

Ms Cleo also makes predictions which have been proven after the fact - does that make her a great scientist?

The big difference is that the charlatans make predictions using fuzzy wording so that they can shape almost any event to be construed as fitting their predictions. The predictions are also alone, that is independent of each other, or anything for that matter.

Darwin set up a scientific framework and said that for the framework to be true, these things must be found. He stated specifically, and did so within the framework. That some predictions were wrong shows that Darwin didn't know everything and that as we know, evolutionary theory has far surpassed him with advanced knowledge and new discoveries.

On your personal attack line, I also don't discredit Blaise Pascal's math genius because of the logical nightmare that is his "wager."

[Quila]

maybe we are evolving INTO rocks. As I look around today, that would make sense

Don't worry, it's just a standard yearning for the "good old days." Every generation looks at what surrounds them and remembers when things were "better." For some reason, we always forget how things are actually better than before.

[Quila]

I'm understanding why biologists duck the debate with certain Creationists. There's just no common ground for discussion. There's gotta be a better way to do this.

It's like trying to take Kent Hovind's "proove evolution" challenge. First, you'd have to get him to understand how science works, because the points he gives to be proven show a basic lack of understanding in the workings of science.

[Quila]

set our variables	a = 1, b = 1
so	a = b
multiply by a	a2 = ab
-b2	a2-b2 = ab-b2
factor out	(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
cancel out	(a+b)(a-b) = b(a-b)
left with	a+b = b
put back in values	1+1 = 1
and we get	2 = 1

[Quila]

G3K, check this out. This is what a proof in science looks like. That's all there is. A theory is larger than this, explaining phenomena (BTW, who remembers the Muppet skits on that?), not locking particular things down to a set mathematical proof. This proof could be part of a larger mathematical theory that in itself can't be proven because it is a scientific theory.

[Quila]

Reality will explain itself---if one will let Him...ask!

I did long ago, no response. No evidence either in this world of your loving and caring god. Only indifferent nature. You think this is bad, sad, but it need not be. We have each other as a society the responsibility to make good, make reason, make purpose, not relying on a mystical father-figure to do it for us.

Self-responsibility is difficult, not the easiest way as religion is, but very satisfying as you know you did good yourself, not out of fear of hell or because of receiving commands to do so.

[f.Christian]

It definitely is a tradeoff...to gain God--righteousness you have to lose pride--self!

[Quila]

It definitely is a tradeoff...to gain God--righteousness you have to lose pride--self!

Don't forget, trade-offs go both ways. Whatever the philosophy, we'll gain or lose something. Just hoping that most people choose the good side of anything (bad examples, Nihilism on my side and fundamentalist killings on yours).

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

ROTFLOL.  I'd forgotten about that one.  I remember a math teacher in H.S. proving that .99 = 1 using a similar method.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Note that a repeating decimal expansion is a "pattern", but not all "patterns" in infinite decimal expansions are "repeating."

Oh granted.  I believe that the first 8 or 9 digits of Pi are found twice within the first 2 million digits of Pi.  My memory is hazy on this, but I believe that is the case.

[Quila]

And most people demand that the mistake is in the "factor out" stage. Sad.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You are preaching to the choir.  Since Pi is transcendental, it cannot be represented by an algebraic formula.