Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement



    Proving evolution has produced a new species has yet to be done in an empirical manner and if your criticism is that it can't be done in a lab,
    In one breath you say evolution is fact, yet in another you say this? More evidence for the equivocation of evolution.

    Proving evolution has produced a new species has yet to be done in an empirical manner and if your criticism is that it can't be done in a lab, then you will probably always be a creationist.
    A fairly strong basis on which to remain skeptical, no?

    what we see as precursers to what makes a hominid a Homo Sapian is vast and much more convincing than a fossil record showing Homo Sapian as static and an original form.
    As profound as that seems to allude, it is only so when the presupposition that man came from apes is present.

    In other words, there is more evidence of man as an organism evolving from a lower species than man just being created.
    No, in other words, scientists prefer to point to the few ambiguous examples as evidence of mans origin, rather than the lacking transitionals required to link synapsids to homonids and everything in between necessary, to even allows for the comparison to be made between homo Sapien and homonid. That is why accomplished paleontologists Stephen Gould and Niles Eldridge came up with the theory punctuated equilibrium, because it is not a matter of insufficiency in the fossil record, it is a matter of counter-instances. Of course punctuated equilibrium is rejected by science because it acknowledges macromutations, which would not align with the dogma of Darwinist evolution, the current paradigm scientists strictly adhere to.

    American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould and Paleontologist Niles Eldrige:

    "When Niles Eldredge and I proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in evolution, we did so to grant stasis in phylogenetic lineages the status of 'worth reporting'- for stasis had previously been ignored as nonevidence of evolution, though all paleontologists knew its high relative frequency."

    Gould described his position as, "the not-unreasonable relegation to the lunatic fringe that some paleontologists in the past had suffered when they too saw something out of kilter between contemporary evolutionary theory, on the one hand, and patterns of change in the fossil record on the other." (Time Frames, Niles Eldredge, (Heinemann: London 1986),
    p.93)

    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/libra...nd-theory.html

    "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence."

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

    I'm sure you'll use the same tired argument that this is in opposition to "scientific consensus," so it is absurd, but consider not only how logically unappealing that argument is, but also how it is a direct misrepresentation of how major scientific break through historically occurs. The father of modern astronomy Copernicus, the father of modern physics Einstein, the father of modern chemistry Lavoisier, all went against, although some more than others, what was then considered as scientific fact. It's amusing, thought of how the structure of this debate would be identical hundred of years ago if you were arguing in favor of say, the phlogiston theory. The only notable difference here being their is an added element because of the origin of life issue. The dogma you pontificate is science in reverse; the origin of man from apes is the secular version of Adam and Eve, period.



    Creationists can conveniently hide behind the difficulties in collecting fossils millions of years old.
    While scientists can conveniently continue to hide there with us.

    Yet, the fossil record is quite rich with million year old samples of brain capacities, thumb positioning, pelvic angles and so on. Truthfully I like that record more than yours.
    Considering how ambiguous all those are, I would imagine you would. I also imagine you would have been a huge 'Piltdown Man' flag waver as well.

    So we should throw in the towel and look to the heavens? Religion is easy and it is made conveniently easier with the ambiguity of your only source; a 2000+ year old tome.
    It is a matter of what is and will always be unexplainable that some of the worlds most brilliant men have been led to look to the heavens. You mocked me in my previous post about those who believe science will explain everything, but how else can you accept what transcends comprehension, other than a hope that it will one day be comprehensible?

    Einstein was as irreligious as a scientist as there was, and mocked in similar fashion the idea of a personal God. But he was adamant in his belief in a creator.

    "To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man"

    I do know though that if this god is as powerful as you claim he is he certainly did screw a lot of things up in his work.
    To assume God "screwed a lot of things up," is to suggest that we know the absolutes that implicate perfection and purpose.
    Last edited by Sirdowski; 03-06-2012 at 03:20 PM.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    "The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth"

    -Karl Popper


    Nothing summarizes more succinctly what has lead to the cacophony of philosophy, dogma, and science that is evolution.
    Last edited by Sirdowski; 03-06-2012 at 03:21 PM.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    Galen, I don't mean to bump a dead topic, but I came across the quote I had in mind when I originally referenced The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which lead to this existential debate in the first place.

    "We are all deeply accustomed to seeing science as the one enterprise that draws constantly nearer to some goal set by nature in advance.*But need there be any such goal? Can we not account for both science's existence and its success in terms of evolution from the community's state of knowledge at any given time? Does it really help to imagine that there is some one full, objective, true account of nature and that the proper measure of scientific achievement is the extent to which it brings us closer to that ultimate goal? If we can learn to substitute evolution-from-what-we-do-know for evolution-toward-what-we-wish-to-know, a number of vexing problems may vanish in the process. Somewhere in this maze, for example, must lie the problem of induction."


    -Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Pg. 170
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,142

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "
    This quote was in Richard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan's last book.

    Who is Lewontin? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin




  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,010
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    LOL - Notice Galen hasn't responded to any of Sir's latest posts and especially the latest plus Greg's. They're over his head.

    Hell, they're over everyone's heads but we're not shrinks with all that supposed education. Galen betrays himself every time he comes in here.

    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    This quote was in Richard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan's last book.

    Who is Lewontin? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
    Great quote. I had never heard the entire quote before, only the last sentence.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    This quote was in Richard Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan's last book.

    Who is Lewontin? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
    Lewontin has been more a critic of those who extend evolution into the social behaviors such as Wilson and Dawkins as well as scientists like Lewis Thomas who have long compromised the credibility science by stating it can solve all problems (Sirs' original strawman fallacy). Essentially Lewontin's quote above is arguing (as I did) that it is foolish to assume science or man for that matter can answer and solve all problems. This type of thinking only gives fuel to the religious, anti-science and science-illiterate people allowing them to construct easy albeit fallacious arguments against science. His reason for criticism especially against guys like Thomas (the true context of the quote above) is that it allows people like Sirdowski to make superficial claims against science NOT that he is against science.

    Since we are quoting Lewontin so out-of-context allow me to save his good name with another famous quote if his:

    "The primary problem is not to provide the public with the knowledge of how far it is to the nearest star and what genes are made of. . . . Rather, the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth." ... "We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of material relations among material entities."








  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Galen, I don't mean to bump a dead topic, but I came across the quote I had in mind when I originally referenced The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which lead to this existential debate in the first place.

    "We are all deeply accustomed to seeing science as the one enterprise that draws constantly nearer to some goal set by nature in advance.*But need there be any such goal? Can we not account for both science's existence and its success in terms of evolution from the community's state of knowledge at any given time? Does it really help to imagine that there is some one full, objective, true account of nature and that the proper measure of scientific achievement is the extent to which it brings us closer to that ultimate goal? If we can learn to substitute evolution-from-what-we-do-know for evolution-toward-what-we-wish-to-know, a number of vexing problems may vanish in the process. Somewhere in this maze, for example, must lie the problem of induction."


    -Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Pg. 170
    Yeah I get the point.

    So a simple question then is what proof do you have that god exists and christian creation isn't just one more of 100+ such religious myths that every pocket of man since the beginning of time has dreamed up? Of course your answer is none. You will notice though that in that process of trying to figure out a morsal of truth, you will start from what you want to believe and induce from what you know to make your argument. Sound familiar?

    In the end, the evidence of materialism and evolution is just far more robust than creationism even if it hasn't been fully proven regardless of how you go about gathering your data. Sure it is always science's responsiblity to prove theories while faith can sit back and just feel.








  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern PA
    Posts
    4,669
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Sure it is always Republican's responsiblity to prove theories while Liberal's can sit back and just feel.
    Fixed for you.




  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906

    Arrow Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    So a simple question then is what proof do you have that god exists and christian creation isn't just one more of 100+ such religious myths that every pocket of man since the beginning of time has dreamed up? Of course your answer is none. You will notice though that in that process of trying to figure out a morsal of truth, you will start from what you want to believe and induce from what you know to make your argument. Sound familiar?

    In the end, the evidence of materialism and evolution is just far more robust than creationism even if it hasn't been fully proven regardless of how you go about gathering your data. Sure it is always science's responsiblity to prove theories while faith can sit back and just feel.
    FWIW - Your fetish with answering your own rhetorical questions does nothing but attenuate your positions.

    How can I present a satisfactory answer when the hidden prerequisite to an acceptable response is alignment with materialism? In this instance, our premises only differ as being interpretations of the same truths of nature, neither having more weight than the other. While your argument that your premises are more "robust" may make you feel better, it does no more then that to support your ultimate conclusion.


    I would argue the Bible is what separates Christianity from any other religion. For a book written by more than 40 men, with 66 different books, over a period of 2,000 years, the historical accuracy and congruency is nothing short of amazing.

    The single most powerful piece of evidence for Creation is the infinite harmony of the cosmos, which has lead many a man of science to conclude intelligent design. This reality of harmony is implied knowledge by men of science, and humanities ability to quantify the inner workings of the universe from the infinitesimal to the leviathan, has lead to such an obsession with the esoteric details of the sum of the parts and connections between certain parts, that we seem to at times take for granted how masterful the whole truly is. I cease to be astounded by the ever increasing complex relationships once understood, despite the ever increasing knowledge at our disposal.


    I find of nearly equal importance to evidence for creation, the metaphysical and its impact on our interpretation of the world. An obviously lengthy topic, I'll only briefly touch on it. How is it men such as Galileo, Einstein, Bohr, Newton, all wrote in one sense or another, their ability to "see" the reality of their scientific propositions before a means for empirical support was even conceived? It wasn't simply they better understood the available information of science at the time. The most profound scientific discoveries in history occurred in spite of current scientific fact, rather than in addition to. How were these men able to wipe away centuries of scientific doctrine, succinctly isolating the root of the error in previous lines of thought with a simple day dream, and without so much as a single experiment?



    I refuse to respect that we will ever comprehend -from the contemporary or any eventual realization of knowledge and observation- the forces behind the conception of mankind and the universe in which we live. I find no disregard of neither logical nor scientific necessity in doing so. In fact, it is the adherence to these constructs, of logic and science, which compell me to do so. Logic and science are the intellectual institutions which pride themselves on the definite verities with which they, in the case of logic, articulate, and in that of science, elucidate; their authority reigning only over the the world of comprehension. To what outrance of materialistic possibility, and with what degree of intrinsically requisite verity can logic and science articulate and elucidate what can only be described as metaphysical? Doing so would require either a drastic anomalistic exception to the rules through which we understand our world, or a drastic just-so reformation of these rules. I propose the former. With respect to the immortal words of Nicholas Copernicus:

    “To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.”
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland