Source: Page 138 of White Noise Keywords: "word," "sleeve," "strayed"

From: Gerald G. Fuller" <gfuller@advant.com> Subject: Re: Word/Wisdom command? chronology Date: 21 May 1999 Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon

"Christopher A. Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:0kl5v1pl4hjumqksiojgt75nlvbpueqic3@4ax.com... > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:32:02 -0800, "Precision" <precis...@Usenet.com> > wrote: >>"Christopher A. Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in message >>news:31v4v15nk8eo64p2fekul5dgt7bkijt3vg@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:51:23 -0800, "Precision" <precis...@Usenet.com> >>> wrote: >>>>"Christopher A. Lee" <c...@optonline.net> wrote in message >>>>news:cr84v19rn0ht7lqdf12iu6h4g4re47s2cs@4ax.com... >>>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:22:59 -0500, Koi-lo >>>>> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote: >>>>>>http://www.world-science.net/othernews/060214_darkenergyfrm.htm >>>>>>How easy it is to drop a theory id there no proof or it can not pass >>>>>>the smell test. >>>>>>I wonder why biologists don't do the same with evolution. I imagine >>>>>>the alternative is scary >>>>> Which are you: a liar or an idiot? >>>>Whether he's a kook or not, it doesn't take rocket science to recognize >>>>that >>>>evolution is a pretty primitive concept in the present-day form held by >>>>scientists of this period. Some believe the theory can effectively ward >>>>off >>>>theistic leanings in those prone to thinking outside the proverbial box. >>> Somebody else who is a liar, an idiot or both. >>> Evolution is an observed fact. It was the observations that were given >>> the label of evolution. >>Disagreement does not make one a liar. > I never said it did, liar. Now THAT is satire. Not very funny satire. >> An observed fact? How can you observe >>something that THEORETICALLY happened long before you were born? You can > Sigh. Learn something about what you are attacking out of ignorance. > Do you imagine that allele frequency isn't observed to change in > populations (the modern definition of evolution)? You mean allele frequency? Yes, I'll agree that is observed to change in populations. Can we prove there is allele frequency in animals? Again, yes. Humans? Now we are in different territory. As prevalent a species on this planet, I can't help wonder why there is no proven link connecting humans to various life forms down the chain working back to the beginning of life on Earth?     > Or that speciation hasn't been observed in both the lab or the wild? > The talk.origin FAQs have plenty of examples. > What do you imagine the word "evolution" was coined as a label for, > more than 200 years ago? Hint: the observed variation an divergence in > fossil sequences collected, catalogued and collated by the leisured > class who travelled the world collecting anything and everything of > interest. > Since the investigation and understanding of what causes evolution, > the mechanisms of heredity and mutation are well understood, leading > to whole new sciences and technologies which wouldn't even exist - > including genetics. Evolution is now defined in terms of genetics (see > above). And interestingly, this has led to the discovery of another > mechanism for evolution - genetic drift. I don't disagree with you. However, science cannot conclusively extrapolate on the origin of humans based on the evolution of other species. >>only observe theories written by scientists with Ph.D.'s whom nobody in >>the >>scientific community dares to refute if their own credibility is to remain > Another lie. Not exactly a lie. Science has this problem as does every other discipline based on higher level learning on Earth today. > The explanations are accepted because they work consistently, > predictably and predictively. > When they don't, it is investigated to determine why and the > explanation refined to include the results. That is well and good, but my point was -- and I think you know -- that the context of this discussion (unless I'm mistaken) is based on the evolutionary origin vs. alternative origin of HUMAN intelligent life. >>intact. And yes, you can label an "observation" as was the case with >>evolution. Many failed theories aka observations that died with past eras >>were aptly named. > Equivocation over the word "theory". It's not the wild-assed guess of > common usage. It's the explanation for the fact. Keep repeating IN > SCIENCE THE FACT COMES BEFORE THE EXPLANATION FOR IT, WHICH GETS > TESTED AND CONFIRMED. You've raised some excellent points but I think we're not on the same page, so to speak. I gather you believe there is proven efficacy in specifically Darwinian evolution as THE basis for evolution of all life on this planet. The word evolution has many connotations in the scientific community just as the word religion has many connotations in the theological community. I doubt any scientist would claim there is one universal teaching about evolution that is scientifically accurate. There are varying theories about evolution that often contradict one another. I'll throw out a quick and dirty example at this late hour to illustrate what I'm trying to say. If I told you that animals evolve but humans and perhaps a few specific species of animals were placed on this planet long ago by an intelligence in the universe, I'm claiming that evolution is true in some cases but not true in other cases. Darwin would hardly agree. Other scientists may also disagree, but may get into an argument with Darwin about various evolution theorems. Some scientists may even agree that it is possible an intelligent civilization long ago "tera formed" Earth and placed humans here amongst life that already evolved over eons, but they may disagree with my assessment that intelligence is an all powerful God. They may argue it's more likely to have been a highly advanced civilization that could travel through folding space/time across the so-called Einstein-Rosen Bridge. In other words, even among those who would agree it is possible for a combination of evolution and introduction of complete organisms by extra-terrestrial intelligence, we could argue FOREVER (if given that much time) on the specifics. In like manner, if Darwin came to our time through a time machine and learned to post to these newsgroups, you might be calling him a liar after hearing what he actually believes about evolution. If he posted "you totally misunderstood my Origin of the Species" you might angrily call him a liar for saying that. The truth (no lie) is there are many theories on evolution in conflict with one another.  Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ----------------------------------------------------------     ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ----------------------------------------------------------                        http://www.usenet.com

Back to "The Usenet Project" Main Page - Back to Starve.Org Main Page - Contact - Starve Archive