Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Is it a contention or not?
Is it a contention or not?
You stated it was.... You wrote: "Statement two - Any evidence contrary to the dogma will be marginalized and ridiculed. (another contention which does not include the word contend)."
Yes, I can, when evidence can be "buried".
Did plants die before the sin of Adam? What about bacteria? What about individual cells? Please answer.
"Yes, I can, when evidence can be "buried"."
Sorry, even if that were the case (it isn't) your statements would still be contradictory.
Thank you. You were wrong about the contradiction.
Thank you. You were wrong about the contradiction.
The floor is yours.
Nope. You are wrong. Falsifiability is a potentiality.
Thank you. QED
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
So, while you are at it, I guess you better prove that evolution is a religion.
Here are some definitions of religion for you to consider in formulating your answer:
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
It is great to hear from you!
What really drives me nutz about E. O. Wilson's statement is that he is saying evolution uses "illusions" to accomplish "ends" or "purposes" (reproductive success) while at the same time many if not most Neodarwinists strongly deny that nature has any purposes at all. What a jumbled mess!
Agreed. To stand back and watch the ‘experts’ debate the philosophical ramifications of their belief is - well, I wish I could say humorous. The statement you are commenting on was actually from both Ruse and Wilson. Ruse recently got into a little squabble with Dennett over his latest book Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon and had this to say:
I am a hard-line Darwinian and always have been very publicly when it did cost me status and respect – in fact, I am more hard-line than you are, because I don’t buy into this meme bullsh** but put everything – especially including ethics – in the language of genes. I stick to this and my next book – which incidentally starts by quoting you approvingly on the world importance of selection – goes after the lot – Marxists, constructivists, feminists, creationists, philosophers, you name it.
But if this is so, why do philosophical naturalists dismiss astrology (The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs). If no intelligent design exists than astrology is part of the philosophical naturalists beliefs. Hey, the stars lined up just right and here we all sit discussing issues on the internet - but hey, had they lined up different there would be no internet or issues to discuss and it would not make any difference in the whole scheme of events.
What about alchemy (A seemingly magical power or process of transmuting )? Why should philosophical naturalists dismiss this as they research OOL? Life from non-life, intelligence from stupidity (lack of intelligence), design from the illusions of design…
The one thing we’ve learned from history is that it repeats itself. We are currently looking at the new improved enlightenment movement (or ‘brights’ ) back now with even bigger dogma and more massive control - and even more baggage than before.
Go fly a kite. My use of dogma is perfectly understood by many people.
"Nope. You are wrong. Falsifiability is a potentiality."
And if evidence exists that goes against evolution, it is by definition falsifiable. It does not mean that evolution is therefore falsified, only that it is falsifiable. Being unfalsifiable means that no conceivable evidence can go against the theory; if evidence already exists, as you claim, that does go against evolution, or that can go against evolution, than it cannot possibly be unfalsifiable. You can't have it both ways.
Your attempts to squirm out of the hole you dug for yourself are quite amusing.
Why would the cell want to have an intermediate between DNA and the proteins it encodes?
http://web.mit.edu/esgbio/www/dogma/dogma.html
Exists.
You are hallucinating about holes.
Naw, you are not scatter-brained...just diversifying...
?????
Exists.
Thank you. QED.
Lack of substance in reply noted.
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.