Posted on 10/25/2006 11:10:46 AM PDT by Blackirish
Essentially Ah-nold with a more annoying accent, IMHO.
I don't ever see the evos slap down their fellows about their behavior and language towards non-evos (with one exception that I recall) either. It's a two way street you know.
But you wont, because you agree with them on the subject of evolution, so you are willing to let them do or say anything, as long as they say that one thing that you agree with.
What's the point when the account has already been nuked? And you don't know whether I ever was going to or not, or whether I hit the abuse button on them or not. That would be more effective.
My not choosing to slap down every nutjob poster that comes along is not an indication of my agreeing or disagreeing with what he says, and I will not be manipulated into certain behavior by the specious accusations of someone who disagrees with me. You can accuse and imply all you want but I will not be used.
Atta girl! :-}
Trivial. The ACLU-types who *do* take sides on this, reject ID in science classes not because it is off-topic for a science class, but on the grounds of the mythological separation of church and state. Not from the "scientifically rigorous" grounds given by evo posters here on FR...
Cheers!
Dave went charging into another forum, waving the flaming sword of righteousness, hurling insults at everybody present, declared himself to be some sort of holy warrior attacking the forces of evil...
It was pathetic.
Only in your world.
True science has "Laws". Such as the law of gravity, ohms law, etc, etc.
It seems certain people want the "theory of evolution" changed to the "law of evolution".
You have misunderstood how these terms are used in science. Please take a look at the definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread). If you have any questions, please let me know and I will try to explain the terms:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
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.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
[Last revised 9/26/06]
But not by those doing science. The anti-scientists do this constantly, especially if they are freshmen students in a science class.
I fully understand the human struggle to keep up politeness and manners, but it simply MUST be done. I've made apologies to more than one poster during my relatively short term at FR, and I may have to do so again in the future. But, if I lose my patience, I at least make an effort to keep it off-line; to mitigate the permeation of my angst into the text of my posts. Yeah, I'm not perfect; I make mistakes, but the effort has to be put forth. And, please, don't overlook that I'm taking BOTH sides of the crevo divide to task on this point. As you note, repeating a partial list of names you've been called on crevo threads, the problem is a SHARED problem, and the responsibility to fix it must also be a SHARED responsibility.
Respect for other posters -- whether you agree with their stated position or not -- has got to rule the day; it's got to be everyone's personal responsibility. We see the result of that not being the case, and it's nothing if it's not butt-ugly.
Right.
I'm not trained in the field, but others are and although there are not as many "doubting" radiometricians as there are like you in your camp, I suggest that as the scientist you claim to be that you begin questioninng your beliefs and your "science" - science is not written in stone you know. Genius men of science of the past really and truly believed in the theory of humors causing disease for example...or understanding human behavior by measuring skulls....phrenology was it?
When I have time I will look up the "other side' in your field however. Are you familiar with the critical literature or is your field one sided and intellectually blocked to any inquiry?
That's not why it's been kicked out. It's been kicked out based on the *separation of church and state* misinterpretation. It was kicked out because it's Christian, it's religious.
Contrary to common opinion "theories" are not promoted into "laws" as hypotheses become theories. The theory is the pinnacle of science. No one argues for the promotion of the "theory of evolution" into the "law of evolution."
Gravity is not just a theory. It is fact and theory at the same time. By this I mean the effects of gravity can be measured, and the theory exists to explain why the phenomenon we observe happens. It is the same with evolution. Using modern DNA sequencing technology, the genomes of bacteria may be sequenced in near real time. More complex organisms, such as fruit flies (that also have short generations) take a little longer, but they are getting there, too. In this way, genetic markers may be tracked through populations of organisms over time. This is the definition of evolution, and due to sequencing technology has moved from theoretical science into empirical science. The theory of evolution is our model to explain why the genetic markers change the way they do.
I'm sure this has been posted a hundred times before, and will be posted hundreds of times again, because this is an exceedly common mistake.
You were the one who said "call a spade a spade", and you are one who never will. Take your own advice.
What's the point when the account has already been nuked?
DaveLoneRanger, editor-surveyor, Running Wolf, et al, have been nuked? When did that happen?
I feel like I missed the "dave" spectacle.
Yeah, I read. Try it sometime.
I think there is a problem, a growing problem. FR is becoming more hostile to pro-science people.
This problem seems to come from the top.
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.