Re: Evolution Deniers


"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrndq3sqk.mo6.wettering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On 2005-12-15, al <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > "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 you
r
> >> 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.
>
> So, you really don't have anything to say to defend the absurdity that you
> tried to promote as assault on the rationality of science?
>
> Color me surprised.
>
> You really should stop using that harlot of science, the computer.
>
> It can only lead to trouble.
>
> Mark
>
> > al
I repeat that the computer was not invented by any scientist, he was a post
office engineer.
If you are referring to Dino' Cove, I have gone into that one at some length
on this thread tonight.
I never mentioned floating bones, geddit.
al
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Re: Expelled....Liberals Exposed....
    ... science or the way scientists think. ... this fanatic faith in your religion of "science" does NOT make ... Religion, at least some of them, ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Fallout 3 no longer banned in Australia
    ... based on the axioms we've accepted from science. ... changed its mind many times through its short life & each time it's refined ... Faith is not just about finding some truth in order to invalidate ... are so many scientists with differing or even opposing POVs on this topic, ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg)
Loading