Posted on 06/24/2005 4:07:28 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Must have been enough substance to tweak your addled cognative facilities, else you would have kept your equally addled compositional skills to yourself.
Please refer to world summit referenced above and point out those in attendance who would admit to an intelligent agent (i.e. God) as involved with evolutionary processes.
Without getting down too deep into the weeds, the basic idea of Evolution is that species evolved from other species. I understand that numerous books and articles have been written explaining how this happens. My problem is that it has never been verified that this actually happens, i.e., the laboratory evidence and fossil record are not convincing (at least not to me). That is my position. The theory has not been proven, and the burden of proof is on you and other supporters. What would it take to change my mind? Show some proof, not articles that make unverified assertions.
Also, you shouldn't assume that people who disagree with you are not being sincere. Reasonable people can disagree.
If you were to go to a business meeting, would you introduce yourself with "Hi, I'm Fester Chugabrew, the Christian"?
Would you put your religion on your business card? Not the cryptic inside baseball, fish symbol, but flat out say "member xyz church"?
Who knows the religion of these folks? But assuming they're all athiests isn't reasonable.
Although I wouldn't guarantee that in the future, as Christians are chasing scientists away from their churches as fast as they can. I suppose dumbing down congregations has the same bennefits for some church leaders as it does for liberals to dumb down schools.
They just had a conference with lots of professors and professional scientists working with evolution theory every day. And you think there might be some books on the subject? YA THINK?
My problem is that it has never been verified that this actually happens, i.e., the laboratory evidence and fossil record are not convincing (at least not to me).
And they couldn't convince the OJ jury either. They had their mind made up in advance with the strength of a religion. Just like you and evolution.
PH read you right off the bat alright.
Here's you in post #7: As someone who is open-minded on the subject, can you tell me one aspect of the Theory of Evolution which has been scientifically verified
You're not open minded. You've already made up your mind and you just admited it in post #63.
What you are is a typical lying Christian. You lied about having an open mind, and merely wanting to find out information. Your post #7 was an invitation for PH to give you some information, so that you could proclaim it "unconvincing", and thus "win" your argument.
Snake oil salesmen. Every one of you.
Sure, people are entirely capable of hiding their beliefs. My point is, if you asked the folks who attended this world summit whether they believe God has anything to do with biology, I think you know what the answer would be.
Here’s your reply to me in its entirety: Absolutely, and it has an exactitude comparable to that of evolution's inferences, extrapolations, and hopeful constructs based upon unobservable history, coupled with the presupposition that nothing intelligent could possibly be involved with the formation of intelligent beings.
Now, it’s entirely possible you think you’ve posted something here, but really, you haven’t. There is nothing whatever exact about Astrology, whereas we have some pretty exact knowledge regarding evolution, particularly since recent advances in genetics have come into play. They've changed our understanding of lines of descent.
I’m not sure what offends you about evolution’s “extrapolations,” but I will note that extrapolation is part of every field of science. Scientists then try to confirm or disprove those extrapolations, and go on from there. If there have been any “extrapolations” resulting from Astrology in the last thousand years that have contributed in any way to scientific knowledge, or even refinements in Astrology itself, there’s been a powerful conspiracy afoot to keep them secret. I suggest you expose this conspiracy and garner for yourself the fame and riches you rightly deserve.
This difference, by the way, is essential to science. There have been great advances in all scientific theories in the last few years, including evolutionary theory. However, there have been no advances in astrology … or iridology, reflexology, ESP, or spiritualism despite numerous people spending an enormous amount of time on all of them. This long-term lack of progress is a key marker of pseudoscience.
Here’s a quote from “The Fringes of Reason,” edited by Ted Schultz. It's in the chapter “Reality Shopping, A Consumer’s Guide to New Age Hokum,” by Alan M. MacRobert and Ted Schultz:
As physicist Rolf M. Sinclair pointed out at an American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in 1980 in San Francisco, one of the key distinctions between science and pseudoscience is that science changes rapidly. New ideas are quickly accepted once they are proven, and disproven ideas are likewise quickly rejected. Most of the focus of current research involves ideas less than ten to fifteen years old. In contrast, pseudoscience clutches doggedly at ideas for their own sake. "Astrology froze about two thousand years ago and simply hasn’t changed much," Sinclair said. "That unchanging character is what allows me to say astrology is a pseudo science."My father finally became inactive in the American Society for Psychical Research partly because nothing ever seemed to lead anywhere. At home, we have a shelf lined with issues of the Society’s journal, marching back through the decades. Unlike other scientific journals, it contains nothing that one can build upon. In essence, the Society is just where it began in 1885, and where its precursor, the London Society for Psychical Research, began before that. It has yet to demonstrate that psychic powers exist at all, much less learn anything about them.
You’ll have to tell me what you mean by “hopeful constructs based upon unobservable history.” Science requires evidence, and evolutionary theory uses evidence. Astrology, on the other hand, does not. If you don’t know or won’t learn the difference, you’re wasting everyone’s time.
You then took me to task for failing to address the “substance” of your post. I stand by my previous characterization regarding its utter lack of substance. But just to make you happy, I’ve picked it apart for you. Will you now return the favor and tell me in what possible sense “Holy Ghost verification” is scientific?
And in conjunction with that, tell me what you’ve learned about N-Rays.
If they were believers, I think the answer would be that God has just as much to do with biology as He does with making it rain.
Either God is everywhere, and has His hands in everything, including evolution. Or He doesn't exist. I think the attendees at the convention would have picked one or the other, and not all would have picked the latter.
I don't know. I'm a Feces myself.
There is no "proof." In science, there is only dis-proof. That said, what there is -- for every currently-accepted scientific theory -- is a ton of supporting evidence, and no evidence that constitutes disproof. Here's a tiny example of the evidence that's out there. It's a link provided by Ichneumon, so he's getting a courtesy ping:
8,000+ papers on vertabrate evolution. National Academy of Sciences. (It's now almost 13,000 papers. Science has marched on since Ichneumon first posted that link.)
That's just a tiny sample of what's out there. For a hint at more, check out the section called "TONS OF EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION" in The List-O-Links.
If you still maintain that your exacting standards haven't been met, that's fine.
All the more indication that a comparison between the sciences of evolution and astrology is not without foundation.
Yeah. "If."
On the other hand, evolutionary theory has changed as knowledge has increased. The usual creationist complaint is, "How come you keep changing it?? Can't you make up your minds??"
Are they both a problem, Fester -- evolutionary theory keeps changing and it keeps not changing? If you believe that, you're a doubleplusgood duckspeaker for sure!
Your point appears to be to miss the difference between a science that's old, but keeps changing as new discoveries are made (chemistry, biology, astronomy, evolution), with pseudoscience that hasn't made a single step forward in its history.
Nice cherry-picking, again. Want to try N-Rays and "Holy Ghost verification" this time?
Evolutionist speculations have been around just as long. The assumptions remain the same. The evidence is consistently shoehorned to fit the assumptions. Astrologers are no different.
That's certainly a long time, but Darwin had an actual estimate based on the observed rate of variation. Kind of off the cuff, but he was closer than either infinity or 6000.
What is the explanation these folks have for why the theory of evolution has essentially stagnated since Darwin's time with any scientists who dare to question some of the sillier premises like the "tree of life" being marginalized as religious zealots, even if they aren't religious at all? Just wondering.
I've studied evolutionary theory. I can't say I understand it fully, or that I'm up on all the cutting-edge aspects of it, but I have a good, basic grasp of it. And I know a lot about astrology. I've studied it in detail. Evolutionary theory is science and astrology isn't.
N-Rays?
The veracity of scientific claims is bolstered by successful predictions. Newton was verified by the appearance of Halley's Comet on schedule. Darwin estimated the amount of time required to evolve from a single celled organism to the observed variety of multicellular life. He noted the current rate of variation and estimated several hundred million years. The correct number appears to be 500 million years.
It's pretty striking that an estimate derived from a biological theory turned out to be closer than the prevailing estimate provided by the physics of Darwin's time.
Yes, I am confident this has been verified scientifically, by examining genomes of various species and by examining the fossil record (which isn't quite as free of good transitional forms as creationists allege). The mechanism is very slightly in doubt, that is, what causes new species to descend from earlier ones. Again, mainstream science says it's natural selection; a very small number of scientists challenge this.
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.