Re: Evolution Deniers


"al" <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dnsq2u$o6b$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:BFC650FB.3687%tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On 12/14/05 7:38 AM, in article dnp3f7$ail$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "al"
>> <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Raymond Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:BFC4F8DA.3002%tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >> On 12/13/05 4:12 PM, in article dnndav$qu3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "al"
>> >> <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> <jrsp8s@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >>> news:FVFnf.37141$tV6.23247@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:1134504052.326012.88750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> CreateThis wrote:
>> >>>>>> sheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >> My advice, if you care to hear it, is to start learning about the
> natural
>> >> world. If you are upset about the Theory of Evolution, learn about the
> TOE
>> >> -- what it says and why it says it -- from their own sources. The
> sources
>> >> you will get on this subject from Pathlights, Answers in Genesis, and
> any
>> >> other Creationist source will be perverted and distorted.
>> >>
>> >> Scientists are very well able to discuss what they believe and why
>> >> they
>> >> believe it. We do not need our enemies to speak for us.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Raymond E. Griffith
>> >
>> > Hi again Raymond
>> > You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap.
>> > I would like to remind you that I have every right to think this and
> some
>> > very good reasons for arriving at this conclusion.
>>
>> I am pleased to tell you that I never said or thought that you did not
> have
>> the right to your opinion. You also have the right to believe that you
> have
>> some very good reasons for arriving at your conclusion.
>>
>> That said, I also have the right to point out that you are arguing from
>> ignorance, and that from a point of actual knowledge, you don't know what
>> you are talking about.
>>
>> You may have a right to your opinion. But you haven't got the resources
>> to
>> make a reasoned judgment. And it is my right -- and duty as a
>> Christian --
>> to point that out. You may indeed go along making a fool of yourself as
>> so
>> many do. I would be remiss if I were to let you do so without a word of
>> rebuke or reproach. You see, I happen to believe that I am my brother's
>> keeper.
>>
>> > One of the complaints proffered by the evolution scrotes and (whatever
>> > female scrotes are)
>>
>> I am unsure what you mean by "scrotes". It sounds like an insult. Perhaps
>> both you mind and mouth are in the sewer? Or maybe you have a genitalia
>> complex? If so, that is unkind and unChristian. Grow up.
>>
>> > is that they claim that some reasons for rejecting
>> > evolution are unscientific.
>>
>> Some reasons for rejecting evolution are indeed unscientific. Science is
>> based on evidence. Rejecting evolution -- which has garnered a huge
>> amount
>> of evidentiary support -- would be unscientific.
>>
>> Now mind you, scientists do not always agree on the exact mechanisms and
>> meanings of what are found. But the evidence for evolution itself is
>> overwhelming.
>>
>> Most people who reject evolution do so out of religious reasons, not out
> of
>> scientific ones. The religious reasons for rejecting evolution are
>> unscientific.
>>
>> > As I have said to Dana, this is totally a
>> > illogical and unscientific statement.
>>
>> Not at all. Dana's statement was a statement of fact. You might not have
>> liked it (as is your right), but Dana was correct.
>>
>> > Scientists are very good at collecting data. What they are not good at
> is
>> > interpreting said data.
>>
>> Oh Ho! Pardon me. That is perhaps one of the funniest statements I have
>> heard all year. And yet your life is permeated throughout by the results
> of
>> such data interpretation. Chemistry, physics, engineering, medicine -- it
>> boggles the mind!
>>
>> Scientists are very good at interpreting the data they collect. And like
>> people, they are not always in agreement. But then, Christians are not
>> always in agreement about the Bible, either, are they? We Christians tend
> to
>> argue more about the meanings of things and interpretations than
> scientists
>> ever have.
>>
>> > One of the posts in the thread about viral gene transfer laid out some
>> > perfectly good evidence and the accompanying data and then, at the end
> said
>> > something like "The sudden appearance is due to missing data and all
> that
>> > went before will be found".
>>
>> I would be interested in your putting forward a URL for the post. I
> haven't
>> the time to read all of them. I am a busy man. I teach. I have a family.
>> I
>> am spending more time on you than what you are probably worth. Yet here I
>> spend it. It would be good for you to help out a bit by doing a little
> more
>> work about documenting your assertions.
>>
>> The fact is that such a thing as viral gene transfer actually does exist.
> We
>> have used it to cure certain diseases (with the unfortunate effect of
>> causing premature cancers!). One cannot always tell where the virus will
>> embed itself in the genetic code.
>>
>> But science is correct when it talks about missing data. And guess what.
> We
>> go looking for the data! We don't just throw up our hands and quit. We
> take
>> matters into our own hands and start looking.
>>
>> Now I'd bet quite a bit that your "something like" is probably
>> unrecognizable in the post you are not referencing, but let's suppose
>> that
>> you hit the nail on the head, and the person was indulging in what you
> note
>> below as "pure speculation".
>>
>> > This is pure speculation
>>
>> So what? Is this person speaking for himself and his research, or for the
>> whole scientific community? Is this person seeing into the future? No.
>> But
>> just as others do, he expects that further study will help make certain
>> things clear.
>>
>> Guess what? He has history on his side on that one! For every, virtually
>> every area some Creationist said could not be understood naturally --
>> that
>> we had come up against the limits of knowability and stood before the
>> mind
>> of God -- science has time and again produced physical evidence and
> extended
>> knowledge.
>>
>> > but, however, is destined become consensus opinion.
>> > Most of the science of evolution is based on this consensus opinion.
> It's
>> > pure crap.
>>
>> Hmmm. I doubt it. Let me ask you a question. What is your faith based on?
>> Your own personal research? Not at all. It is based on consensus
> opinion --
>> you were taught how to believe by someone who did. So is your faith pure
>> crap as well?
>>
>> You'd best be careful how you characterize others! You can't stand close
>> enough to cast mudballs without getting the mud on yourself.
>>
>> Science is willing to change its opinions based upon the weight of
> evidence.
>> That seems to me to much more secure than, say, to stubbornly believe
>> something despite the evidence against it!
>>
>> > Let me, if I may, give another example.
>> > An article some time ago in Sci Am. and also in New Sci. was about
> "Dinosaur
>> > Cove" where there is a large cache of dino' bones. One specimen was
>> > said
> to
>> > be good evidence of evolution in action as it lived in Antarctica and
> had
>> > evolved large eyes to enable it to forage for food during the long dark
>> > arctic winter.
>> > What they omit to mention is that many *nocturnal* animals have large
> eyes
>> > and that bone caches are usually the result of a catastrophe. The
>> > animal
>> > could quite easily have been from Australia and been swept to its
> present
>> > position by a large tsunami.
>>
>> Heh. You do know that nocturnal doesn't simply deal with a short night,
> but
>> also the long nights the arctic and antarctic possess?
>>
>> But in any case, let me make a note here.
>>
>> Bones, particularly dinosaur bones, would probably not float. A tsunami
>> probably would not wash a lot of bones from Australia to Antarctica,
>> since
> a
>> tsunami would not push bones off of the continent of Australia, but would
>> wash them in further. Nor would the large wave keep the bones together
> over
>> the trip. A tsunami over large ocean is not remarkably violent, and a
>> ship
>> will easily pass over it. It is where the wave encounters land that it's
>> amplitude is interrupted and actually pushes things.
>>
>> In point of fact, a story came up from the last tsunami. One man,
> realizing
>> what was about to happen, swam out into the ocean toward the rising
>> water.
>> Why? He had a much better chance of survival, and he did. He bobbed
>> around
>> for several days, but he wasn't pushed.
>>
>> Now then, don't you feel the least little bit silly? You just
>> demonstrated
>> an appalling lack of knowledge about something you spoke rather
>> authoritatively about. But then, earth science is something you know next
> to
>> nothing about. Getting snippets here and there from dumbed-down sources
>> as
>> Scientific American doesn't mean you get the big picture.
>>
>> > This is one of the worst examples of cherry picking that I have seen.
> And
>> > I'm sure it's been written up as another first for evolution.
>>
>> You are "sure"?
>>
>> Young man, you are sure of nothing. You have your opinion, you have your
>> prejudices, and you have your lack of knowledge. And put together, you
> have
>> armored yourself against the facts.
>>
>> Now as you so aptly put it, you have that right to do so. But I cannot be
>> pleased with your doing so. You make your faith look silly. As a
> Christian,
>> I am distressed that you use faith as a way to assert a wisdom you do not
>> possess. It makes Christ look bad.
>>
>> > So you see, much of science is unscientific and evidence does not have
> to
>> > have the stamp of science on it to be valid.
>>
>> Actually, scientists can behave badly at times, although you have not
>> demonstrated any place where they have done so as yet. What you have
>> demonstrated is your penchant for jumping to conclusions about things of
>> which you do not understand. Professing yourself to be wise, you have
>> demonstrated your foolishness.
>>
>> > The fact that someone has made a statement and omitted to use the
> correct
>> > terms does not invalidate it.
>>
>> Sure it does. You cannot communicate knowledge without communicating
>> knowledge. When you mix up your terms and use them incorrectly, it
>> demonstrates your lack of it.
>>
>> My boy, I don't know who you have been listening to, but knowledge is not
>> yours by right or by absorption. You have to fight to earn it. And
>> respect
>> is not yours by right. You have to demonstrate competence.
>>
>> So then, would you allow yourself to be operated on by a surgeon who said
>> "scalpel" when he meant "suture"? Or go to a doctor who mixed up the
>> names
>> of the drugs he was prescribing?
>>
>> You had better believe that using the correct terminology matters!
>>
>> And I don't care one whit what your opinion is on that particular point.
> If
>> you want to be listened to by anyone, you will decide to use the correct
>> terminology without whining. If you don't, you will have no audience
> except
>> to those who are more ignorant than yourself.
>>
>> And that is my opinion. I happen to be a mathematics professor. You come
>> into my course and I don't care what you might want to call something. If
>> you don't say it right, you get it wrong. Got it?
>> >
>> > Science fails to give credence witness testimony for reasons that
> support
>> > science to the exclusion of all the uninitiated.
>>
>> Ahh yes, the old whining about science being an exclusive club.
>>
>> It's true. Get over it. You can't understand science if you won't learn
>> about it. Science isn't easy. If it were, we'd have had all we've got now
>> centuries ago. Learning how the world works is hard stuff, and it is
>> complicated. Just learning about wave motion takes a good chunk of time
>> to
>> get the basics.
>>
>> You want to understand science? Go learn it. Or at the least, ask
> questions
>> and be willing to admit you haven't an opinion worth a damn because you
>> don't have the knowledge necessary to form a valid one.
>>
>> And when you do that, you will be demonstrating Christian humility. And
>> perhaps when you start to live your faith rather than just believing a
>> set
>> of doctrines you will have a faith worth someone else's notice.
>>
>> > And so on............
>> > al
>>
>> Al, I wish you well -- but only if you come to the conclusion that
> opinions
>> borne from knowledge are better than those burped out by ignorance. Even
> in
>> the Scriptures the novices are not allowed to be rulers over the church,
> for
>> their pride makes them easy prey for the Adversary.
>>
>> So learn! Opinions and rights of ignorance be damned. You don't need such
>> rights to be wrong, do you? Go forth and exercise your brain in a bit of
>> learning and see what it does for you. It won't hurt you, really!
>>
>> And when you want to talk evidence, let's talk.
>>
>> The fact is that I am not put out by your opinions as much as I am put
>> out
>> by what you are doing to yourself and the faith by allowing yourself the
>> right to an uneducated opinion without the desire to get an educated one.
> I
>> happen to take my faith seriously. So should you.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Raymond E. Griffith
>
> From my position as a know-nothing ignoramus with no education, a
> worthless
> and shiftless waster of the worst kind. I would like to make a comment
> about
> your last post in the most humble maner that I can muster. You are the
> most
> absurd, balmy, bananas, batty, bonkers, cracked, crazed, daft, demented,
> deranged, dippy, flaky, flipped out, foolish, freaked out, gone ape,
> idiotic, insane, irrational, kooky, loco, loony, mad, maniac, maniacal,
> nonsensical, nuts, nutty, preposterous, psyched out, psycho, psychotic,
> schizoid, screwy, stupid, unhinged, unsound, wacky, whacko, zany. You
> should
> be in a rubber room.

I think you should save RG's post, and take another look at another time
down the road...

JR

> al
>>
>
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Theistic Evolution: Harmonizing Science and Faith
    ... Theistic Evolution - or how to harmonize between Faith and Science ... This means that I make one assumption, which is squarely planted in Faith as a matter that cannot be scientifically proved - G-d exists. ... I am theologian with an interest in science, and especially in reconciling Science with Faith. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... If you are upset about the Theory of Evolution, ... > You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap. ... You may have a right to your opinion. ... But the evidence for evolution itself is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... If you are upset about the Theory of Evolution, ... >> You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap. ... > You may have a right to your opinion. ... But the evidence for evolution itself is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> You may have a right to your opinion. ... >>> Scientists are very good at interpreting the data they collect. ... >>> But science is correct when it talks about missing data. ... What is your faith based ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... >>> You seem put out by the fact that I think modern science is crap. ... >> You may have a right to your opinion. ... >>> evolution are unscientific. ... What is your faith based on? ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading