BS: Got Science?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 05:18 PM

it is true i am convinced of my faith steve,but am happy to understand why others refuse it.
i dont know that i want to read the whole of darwin though.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 04:48 PM

Pete.

You appear to be taking us all for fools. Very unwise. You select snippets from Darwin in a manner that betrays the fact that you are perfectly capable of reading it, absorbing it and understanding it. So why don't you just "read much further." And when you get round to "reading much further," you will find that Darwin writes in a crystal clear, almost lyrical way. Superb elegance and honesty of thought. You will also find that he struggles with and ultimately addresses your "question" about mutually dependent parts, etc. I am beginning to think that something in your psyche is preventing you from addressing alternative thinking to that which you have apparently been overwhelmed by. I can only assume that you must have been brainwashed by the Christian Brothers or Jesuits. The Salesians nearly got me, but I narrowly escaped.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Bettynh
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 03:50 PM

I've been reading a lot of Richard Feynman recently. This is what he says about religion. He says much the same thing again and again: that scientists shouldn't be certain of anything, and that's ok.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 02:55 PM

thanks 999.
i suppose if i thought evolutionism were true,i might doubt the virgin birth too.
interestingly to me,when paul spoke to elite greeks in athens[acts 17]he began with creation.it continues to be an issue important in christian communication.


i use the word [evolutionism] because for me,it describes a belief system that is opposed to creationism,and not to confuse with evolution as a fact,in that [in accordance with creationsts pre-dating darwin]there is change within species,but not from one to another.darwin describe such[eg pigeons]early in origins.i,m afraid i,ve not read much further,but if anyone can indicate which part of the book explains his rationale for macro change i will read,just to better understand the theory.
of course,darwin knew nothing of the complexity of cells/DNA but if he did it would be more evidence of design[er]to account for.maybe someone here can explain how mutually dependant parts arise step by step by evolution?.
maybe,i know just enough to ask questions!

lighter-no personal attacks from this side!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 02:55 PM

Steve, I think you're labouring under a serious misapprehension. You see Snail isn't like you and me - he is a superior being who is intellectually and morally superior to us poor mortals. But don't despair! Grasping the reality of this situation can be incredibly liberating!

I realised, whilst participating in another thread, that everything I said was not only intellectually inferior but also morally questionable. That meant that every statement of mine was morally and ethically flawed - hence I could say anything! For example writing ... oh, I don't know ... let me think ... something like: "Piss off, Snail, you pompous tw*t!" was no more (or less) offensive to him than: "I think that singaround organisers and participants should be more critical and seek to improve standards."

Alternatively, you could acknowledge his overwhelming superiority, apologise for your failings, and you might find that he then strides off, his halo shining brightly, to do battle with some other lowly worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 12:23 PM

I have read a great deal about the theory of evolution up to university undergraduate level and will continue to do so without instruction fromn you.

Bully for you. You still haven't got much grasp of its implications though, have you?

>Either, both or neither. I don't give a damn.

Are you now abandoning the distinction between "the theory of evolution" and "evolution"? (Please try and give a straight answer to that instead of another stream of abuse.)

No I'm not. I'm just weary of you clattering on about this in your obstinate refusal to see what is a perfectly clear distinction. As for "giving straight answers," all you've done in this thread so far is targeted my posts with your pedantic nonsense to the exclusion of everything else. Seven times. Not only do you not deal in straight answers, you haven't contributed anything extra at all to the debate. I take it that this is your futile attempt at retribution for the bashing you got on that ancient thread where you were aligning yourself with some wondrously wacky people. Carry on, but my responses will get terser.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 09:43 AM

Oh dear. It's like picking at a scab. You know you shouldn't but somehow you can't stop.

I was not claiming to be better qualified than you, Steve, I was pointing out that I was better qualified than Pete (i.e. qualified at all) in the vain hope that you would see me as someone you could engage in rational discussion. (You had already accused me of talking crap.) My mistake; you don't do rational discussion do you Steve?

Go and read a good modern account of the theory of evolution (yes, wrong name but why change now) and look at the evidence yourself

I have read a great deal about the theory of evolution up to university undergraduate level and will continue to do so without instruction fromn you.

Either, both or neither. I don't give a damn.

Are you now abandoning the distinction between "the theory of evolution" and "evolution"? (Please try and give a straight answer to that instead of another stream of abuse.)

If you have evidence that demonstrates that evolution is not true, let's have it.

Read my lips, Steve old chap. I have absolutely no problem with The Theory of Evolution. It is a work of genius overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. It seems highly improbable that it will ever need serious revision let alone be overthrown by new discoveries but as you have said yourself "As a scientific theory, evolution is perpetually open to question and modification." and earlier "I don't say that the theory of evolution is true". Quite right. You do, however, say "Evolution is true.". I don't know what that statement means and your only effort to explain has been a defence of The Theory of Evolution .

Try and get your thoughts in order and come up with some convincing arguments instead of declaming from your self assumed position of authority and vomiting over anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 09:10 AM

I'm not on the fence. I'm foursquare for truth.

The dangerous jihadists, fundamentalists, totalitarians, zealots, militiamen, revanchists, neo-Nazis, Shining Path guerillas, Basque reactionaries and other assorted armed looney tunes don't read these posts and won't be influenced by anything we say. Their loss.

Remember:

Don't Believe Everything You Think.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Mar 11 - 05:10 AM

"If I were to reveal that, I'd be open to endless personal attacks from one side or the other."

So, Lighter, you're sat on the fence then? To be quite frank, 'personal attacks' on here mean diddly-squat (sticks and stones etc.). But in the real world religious fundamentalists are dangerous and threaten us all.

"All I'll tell you is that I've tried my best to be honest and accurate in presenting the views I've presented."

It's just that I don't understand those views, no matter how 'honestly' they've been presented!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 09:36 PM

Snail, you seem to take a perverse delight in stirring it for the sake of stirring it - but remember that I'm still on your case ... well, I would be if I could be bothered. Ignore him, Steve.

And, pete, I think I'll go on calling you names and being mean to you for a bit longer mainly because I really, really despise 'creationism' and 'creationists'!

Well said on both counts!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 08:33 PM

steve and shimrod certainly get steamed up.i,m the one with no letters after my name,yet can state my position without resorting to playground name calling.

You're as bad as that other fellow, what with him bragging on about his letters and you bragging that you don't have any (I'm not quite sure what that means we're supposed to think of you - perhaps something akin to the sword of truth slashing its philistine way through the bullshit of worthless academia...). I recommend you get steamed up once in a while. It might just sharpen up that fuzzy thinking of yours.

i would have thought anyone secure in their beliefs would not need to defend those beliefs by insulting lanquage.

You are equally insulting with your constant ignorant pronouncements. I submit, in fact, that a lot of people round here have been exceptionally patient with you, considering what rubbish about hard-won scientific achievements you come out with. Some of us are actually scientists, you know.

talking of humble -even darwin confessed that the evidence he presented could be interpreted in the opposite way.

Well Darwin didn't have the information and resources we have today. He had never heard of genes, for example. But what we do have today confirms the theory in triumphant abundance . That is why Darwin is rightly revered by scientists and why lots of us know that he actually got to the truth. Yes, he was a humble and self-effacing man but begod he's needed his bulldogs to put the case for over a hundred years, in the face of balefully-ignorant religious opposition.
   
thankfully others of you can oppose creationism civilly

Creationism is the product of closed, bigoted and ignorant minds and does not deserve civility.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 08:31 PM

If I were to reveal that, I'd be open to endless personal attacks from one side or the other. Also, personal "authority" means nothing. Logic and accuracy count for everything. True is true, false is false, uncertain or unknown is just that. Everyone seems to agree on that much.

And it's a good thing too. Otherwise no factual discussion of anything would be possible.

All I'll tell you is that I've tried my best to be honest and accurate in presenting the views I've presented.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 08:13 PM

>So you have letters.

Not bragging just a futile attempt to stop you talking down to me in the same patronising way you do to Pete.

Yes, you are bragging. You want me to brag too? Well, I wouldn't do that, but you are very unwise to pull the "I've got letters..." stunt with people you don't know. Futile, vainglorious and positively counter-productive. And I might remind you that the whole tone of your responses to me, as in the past, is incredibly patronising. So cast out the plank, eh?   

>I've already expanded above on why I think evolution is true

No you haven't. In your post of 13 Mar 11 - 08:09 PM you simply reiterated the statement and in the following post you summarised the evidence in support of "Darwin's theory". You make a distinction between Evolution and The Theory of Evolution but you seem to have trouble distinguishing them yourself. I am no nearer understanding what you mean by "Evolution is true.".

Then simply commence thinking instead of trying to come up with the next clever, patronising thing to come up with. I've actually made it very clear. I didn't summarise any evidence at all. I indicated the main facets of the evidence, in fossils, morphology, genetics, anatomy, developmental biology and cellular biochemistry. Go and read a good modern account of the theory of evolution (yes, wrong name but why change now) and look at the evidence yourself instead of blathering on with your head in the stratosphere about the philosophy of science.   

>And I say that evolution is true, and I don't give a damn whether you believe it or not.

Good Grief! Now you want me to "believe" things as well. Science isn't about belief, that's religion.

Complete cobblers. Just to satisfy your pedantic disease, let me rephrase, thus. "And I say that evolution is true, and I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not."

>Show me evidence that undermines, in any real sense, evolution.

Do you mean evolution or the theory? It's hard to tell because you seem to use the terms interchangeably in that paragraph.

Either, both or neither. I don't give a damn. Just stop waffling tiresomely on and address the substantive issue for once. If you have evidence that demonstrates that evolution is not true, let's have it. Piss or get off the pot before it overflows with cod-philosophical diarrhoea.

Let me make it clear (in the vain hope that you will stop attacking me for something I am not saying). The Theory of Evolution is one of the pinnacles of human achievement. It vastly increases our understanding of the natural world and our place in it. It is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that it is unlikely to be significantly changed in it's major points.

No, it doesn't "increase our understanding, etc. etc." It explains life on earth in all its beauty and complexity. It is as simple as that. It does far more than you give it credit for and it does so by making incredibly few assumptions. Your last sentence shows that you really agree with me after all, which completely betrays your motives in making these irritating posts.

But, as you concede, as a theory it cannot be described as "true".

I have conceded nothing. I have told you directly and honestly what I think. As a scientific theory, evolution is perpetually open to question and modification. But that does not mean that evolution is not basically the true story of life on Earth.

What can be described as true? Facts, observations, measurements. The sun is shining in Cornwall fits that well enough.

How perverse of you. I told you the sun was shining in Cornwall and you didn't ask for evidence, now you tell me it's a good example of truth. I will refrain from accusing you of having religious faith in my pronouncements.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 07:39 PM

The White Queen in Through the Looking Glass told Alice that sometimes she'd "believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

So your guy might have been more than twice as skeptical.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 07:37 PM

"Shimrod, I tried to set out the rock-bottom case for the Bible, and even for Biblical literalism, as fairly as I could. Did I leave anything out?

Readers should draw their own conclusions. I'm not going to help them."

Lighter, I have no idea if you left anything out or not. Am I one of the readers that should be drawing their own conclusions? If so I don't expect you to "help me" - but, on the other hand, it might be helpful to indicate which side of the fence you sit on!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 05:56 PM

The most honest rationale for creationism I've come across was from a Highland elder I knew over twenty years ago. He accepted that belief in a seven day creation was incompatible with science but regarded it as one of the "three impossible things to believe before breakfast" which he felt were necessary for faith. (He might even have used that phrase).

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 05:42 PM

Also, Descartes was famous for writing, "Cogito ergo sum," which means "I'm thinking, so I (at least) must exist."

Tertullian, a second-century Christian author, was famous for writing, "Credo quia absurdum," which means "I believe it *because* it sounds so absurd." In other words, it sounds so crazy that if it weren't true, nobody could make it up and get other people to believe it.

Naturally, since I'm thinking right now, I'm as positive as I can be that I exist. Descartes and Tertullian...well, I can't be so sure about them, can I?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Penny S.
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 05:22 PM

Be fair, Pete didn't invent that term. It is common usage within a certain group, in which Pete belongs. It shows up in many places if you google it - even wikipedia falls into the trap.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 05:12 PM

Shimrod, I tried to set out the rock-bottom case for the Bible, and even for Biblical literalism, as fairly as I could. Did I leave anything out?

Readers should draw their own conclusions. I'm not going to help them.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 05:09 PM

pete,

There's no such thing as "evolutionism" - that's a word you made up.

And being opposed to illogic isn't illogical!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 03:45 PM

Pete, I start out liking everyone. You're ok with me, although creationism makes as much sense to me as virgin birth 2000 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 03:32 PM

i hope you dont get ill,getting all stewed up with your illogical antagonism.
i am opposed to evolutionism but i wish it,s adherents well.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 03:08 PM

"As Descartes showed, you can never be 100% certain that anything is true except that thinking is taking place, presumably yours."

Lighter, I don't happen to have a copy of 'The Collected Works of Rene Descartes' handy to check that reference in - but if he did say that he may have had a point ... not sure of the relevance of the point, though ...? I thought our last exchange was about the Bible and the fact that you believed that it was 'The Word of God'. Now you seem to be advancing a somewhat different point of view ... frankly, I'm confused ... help!

Snail, you seem to take a perverse delight in stirring it for the sake of stirring it - but remember that I'm still on your case ... well, I would be if I could be bothered. Ignore him, Steve.

And, pete, I think I'll go on calling you names and being mean to you for a bit longer mainly because I really, really despise 'creationism' and 'creationists'!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 02:44 PM

steve and shimrod certainly get steamed up.i,m the one with no letters after my name,yet can state my position without resorting to playground name calling.
they keep inviting me to go away but who would they have to insult then-ah i,m sure they will find someone else!
i would have thought anyone secure in their beliefs would not need to defend those beliefs by insulting lanquage.
talking of humble -even darwin confessed that the evidence he presented could be interpreted in the opposite way.
thankfully others of you can oppose creationism civilly

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 02:33 PM

Steve Shaw

So you have letters.

Not bragging just a futile attempt to stop you talking down to me in the same patronising way you do to Pete.

I've already expanded above on why I think evolution is true

No you haven't. In your post of 13 Mar 11 - 08:09 PM you simply reiterated the statement and in the following post you summarised the evidence in support of "Darwin's theory". You make a distinction between Evolution and The Theory of Evolution but you seem to have trouble distinguishing them yourself. I am no nearer understanding what you mean by "Evolution is true.".

And I say that evolution is true, and I don't give a damn whether you believe it or not.

Good Grief! Now you want me to "believe" things as well. Science isn't about belief, that's religion.

Show me evidence that undermines, in any real sense, evolution.

Do you mean evolution or the theory? It's hard to tell because you seem to use the terms interchangeably in that paragraph.

Let me make it clear (in the vain hope that you will stop attacking me for something I am not saying). The Theory of Evolution is one of the pinnacles of human achievement. It vastly increases our understanding of the natural world and our place in it. It is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that it is unlikely to be significantly changed in it's major points. But, as you concede, as a theory it cannot be described as "true".

What can be described as true? Facts, observations, measurements. The sun is shining in Cornwall fits that well enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 12:36 PM

It may be true for you. But is it true for me?

(Joke.)

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 11:21 AM

Well, I prefer to cut "true" a bit o' slack so that I can at least use what's a very nice word sometimes without someone telling me that I can never be sure that anything is ever true! Ain't that just the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 11:12 AM

As Descartes showed, you can never be 100% certain that anything is true except that thinking is taking place, presumably yours.

Maybe you're just a brain in a vat and something's keeping you alive and deluded. Maybe you're a string of computer code ina computer in the 22d century being manipulated by an AI technician. Maybe everything you know is wrong.

Undereducated people like to use that itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, proton-size doubt about everything to claim that anything that's "true" by scientific standards is just as likely to be plain wrong.

If they really believed that, they'd have a hard time crossing the street safely. Or else they'd "know" that traffic is all illusion anyway, close their eyes, and start walking.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 11:04 AM

Shimrod, I entirely agree, and,as I say, I don't see any discrepancy between saying that evolution is a true description of the history of life (i.e. it is true) and that the theory of evolution is constantly subject to modification as new evidence comes to light. Our friend here has a history of enjoying being a total irritant.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 10:58 AM

So you have letters. So do I. Big deal. You can do better than that. Just for you, I've already expanded above on why I think evolution is true, but you don't appear to have read it yet. I have no idea why you think religion has anything to do with this. That is a not an equation that I would ever make. The theory of evolution is founded on a huge body of evidence. Religion is founded on not a single scrap of evidence. I can either believe something by dint of blind faith or I can believe something because I know of the evidence that supports it. Therefore if I say evolution is true I am not in the remotest sense making a religious statement. The sun is shining in Cornwall this afternoon. That is true. But that is not a religious statement. So stop being silly, eh?

Religion says "this is the truth and you'd better believe it". Science says "I wonder. Let's see what holes I can pull in this."

And I say that evolution is true, and I don't give a damn whether you believe it or not. All the evidence, all the knowledge we have amassed about living things points to the truth of evolution. I'm saying that we are well past the point of no return. You say that science is for pulling holes. Well let's hear you pulling enough holes in the theory of evolution to make it false. Cut out the philosophising for a minute and get down to the real nitty-gritty of the evidence. Show me evidence that undermines, in any real sense, evolution. You can't, because there isn't any. If I can never say that evolution is true, Mr Philosopher, about what can I ever use the word "true?" Or should we strike "true" from the dictionary? Which is not to say that the theory of evolution can never be modified as we discover more. You are obstinately refusing to see that these two positions are entirely compatible. And you brag about studying the philosophy of science.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 09:01 AM

Steve Shaw

But I don't say that the theory of evolution is true, contrary to what that deliberate misinterpreter Snail contended.

Well that's progress but I could do without the ad hominem attacks.

But I do say that evolution is true. If evolution doesn't qualify for the characterisation "true," tell me what does.

I'm sorry but I just don't know what "evolution is true" means. It certainly isn't a scientific statement. It sounds much more like a religious one.

The important difference between science and religion is not that science is right and religion is wrong but how they work. Religion says "this is the truth and you'd better believe it". Science says "I wonder. Let's see what holes I can pull in this." That is what makes it work; that is what makes it strong.

I asked you to look at one of TIA's posts but you either failed to do so or failed to take it on board so I'll quote it again here -

Science is a method...a process. The product of science is information. But the information is *not* science. The information is always provisional. The information is open to question and testing. The information is not sacrosanct. In fact, the information is a challenge to other scientists. It begs them to "prove me wrong". And many times it is proven wrong. The process of science is specifically and consciously self-correcting. "Scientfic Dogma" is the most ridiculous oxymoron of all!

"Evolution is true!" is dogma.

I am not Pete wearing my igonrance as a badge of honour. I have quite a few letters after my name and I have studied philosphy of science so could you cut out the insults and address the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 07:20 AM

f=ma

That isn't a religious affirmation but an interesting fact in the Principia.

Ergo, science isn't a religion, it isn't a view point, it isn't a moral code.

it is trying, with increasing accuracy, to explain and harness that which we experience.

Now....

I managed that without referring to superstition, imaginary friends, mental health issues, bigotry, loony rabid preaching, child abuse, brainwashing or any other facet of religion.

Must be a good day.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Mar 11 - 04:34 AM

Steve,

I stand corrected on the bit about 'overturning' the theory of evolution - bad choice of words late at night! But my more general point was that, in science, nothing is 'set in stone' and new perspectives on accepted theories can emerge with new evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 08:22 PM

I forgot anatomical. Yet another thrusting facet for yer man to graze.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 08:20 PM

That was in response to Shimrod, not Mr Disingenuous above. Fossil evidence, morphological evidence, evidence from developmental biology, genetic evidence and biochemical evidence on many levels, right down to the subcellular, have all overwhelmingly supported Darwin's theory, and no evidence (in spite of manful attempts by religious quackery) has been produced to oppose it. Of course, there has been controversy over the pace of evolutionary change, etc., even over the exact mechanism of selection, but nothing whatever to undermine the general thrust of the theory. There. Facets and thrusts to the heart's content of your average gastropod. Of course, Snail knows all this, but he's a bit slow on the uptake, as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 08:09 PM

More evidence will definitely modify the theory of evolution, but will never overturn it. There does come a point at which the evidence is so overwhelming, and we have passed that point. We are almost, but not quite, there with being able to state that human-induced global warming is true. But I don't say that the theory of evolution is true, contrary to what that deliberate misinterpreter Snail contended. That would be a contradictory statement. But I do say that evolution is true. If evolution doesn't qualify for the characterisation "true," tell me what does. Otherwise we could have a redundant word here.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 08:02 PM

Steve Shaw

I didn't say the theory of evolution is true. I said evolution is true. Try listening. It might just stop you talking crap, as ever.

There's nothing like a reasoned scientific argument and that was nothing like a ...

I find "Evolution is true" even more meaningless. What do you mean? I have trouble with people who confuse "gravity" with the "Theory of Gravity". If you don't "believe" in gravity, try jumping off a tall building. If you don't believe in the "Theory of Gravity", try working out how long it will take you to hit the ground and try the experiment. Does "Gravity is true" mean anything?

Earlier you said "Evolution is true in every facet of its general thrust." Does evolution have "facets"? Does it have "general thrusts"? What are you talking about?

A few days ago you said "Science requires observation, hypothesis set up deliberately to be vulnerable to shooting-down, experiment with controls, processing of data, construction of theories (not truths), communication of information and peer review, all of which serve to inform the next steps.". Absolutely right. In the light of that, how do you justify "Evolution is true"?

You are clearly fully committed to scientific theory but you seem to have suspended critical thinking. Wooly logic plays into the hands of "the enemy". You would do yourself a lot of credit by answering the questions instead of accusing anyone who challenges you with "talking crap".

(And I still can't get my head round the concept of "slightly too much garlic")

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 08:00 PM

All of you 'God Botherers' out there must realise that a good scientist has more humility in her/his little finger than you do, collectively, in all your thick, dogma-stuffed heads. And that's because a scientist DOESN'T know everything and doesn't have an answer to every question. Even well supported theories, like the theory of Evolution and Special Relativity, are not the last word on those subjects; more evidence could modify them, or even overturn them, and anyone who knows the slightest thing about science knows that.

And, pete, I know you're a self-confessed ignoramus - but please go away and come back when you've learned something about science (and that means REAL science - not some tripe that you read, but didn't quite understand, in the University of Hicksville's 'Bumper Book of Creationism').

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 07:28 PM

"some evolutionists are quite openly committed to their creed whatever evidence may counter it."

Evolution is NOT a 'creed'!! It is a theory supported by lots and lots of evidence!

He says this all the time. He hasn't the first idea about what evolution's about. He's a long-time trolling charlatan. Just wait. He'll be back here any minute now, slagging off "evolutionists" and saying that it's all above his head, he's not qualified, he hasn't studied it, etc. et bleedin' cetera.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 07:22 PM

Many undisputed geniuses may not believe in God and belief in God is not synonymous with genius.

Well yes. A frequent argument made by deluded religious science sceptics is, to take but one example, that people such as Einstein, who allegedly did not dispute God's existence, make part of a very good case for the existence of God. Well Einstein was a mathematician and physicist of dazzling genius, there's no denying it. But the minute he starts spouting about God, he's on no higher level than I am. He got no nearer to doing a degree in theology than I did, and I assure you that that's a bloody long way. It's like John Lennon, that third-rate pop-singing druggie, who somehow wooed the world into thinking he was some kind of political guru, spouting naively about world peace and all the rest of that hippie tripe. I admire people for doing the things they're good at. As soon as they use that as an illegitimate platform for sounding off about this, that or the other that they're no more qualified to effuse about than Mickey Mouse, I fart in their general direction. And I eat beans. To be fair to Albert, I reckon that if he were alive today and witnessing how his words are dragged out of context, he'd be turning in his grave.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 07:18 PM

"some evolutionists are quite openly committed to their creed whatever evidence may counter it."

Evolution is NOT a 'creed'!! It is a theory supported by lots and lots of evidence!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 06:55 PM

certainly some of steves posts qualify though he continually claims to ask for evidence.

I don't claim to ask for evidence. I ask for evidence. You wouldn't know evidence if it leapt up and bit you on the arse, would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 06:52 PM

Entirely missing the point, Steve. The position of the creationist lobby is that there is some sort of equivalence between science and religion; that the theory of evolution is something that you have to "believe" in. You seem to share that misunderstanding. "Evolution is true." is not a scientific statement but it sounds very much like a declaration of faith.

For a theory to be scientifically valid it has, in principle, to be falsifiable.

I didn't say the theory of evolution is true. I said evolution is true. Try listening. It might just stop you talking crap, as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 06:36 PM

hi lighter-you make a good argument for majority opinion,but i believe the majority can be wrong as indeed has been the case many times in history.i caught some of the history of science on BBC4 tonight and examples were given in that.
in addition this subject has spiritual and plilosophical implications-and not just for christians.not that i put you in their camp ,but some atheists are evidently also hostile mockers.certainly some of steves posts qualify though he continually claims to ask for evidence.
some evolutionists are quite openly committed to their creed whatever evidence may counter it.

tia-just so i understand;are you saying that when surprise was expressed at 65mill blood residue that they had no basis or reasoning for such amazement?.

thanks to those who have responded graciously-pete

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 06:24 PM

Actually, Lighter none of that constitutes proof in any scientific sense.

1. Any book could claim to be the 'Word of God'and I don't see any reason whatsoever why He shouldn't be a liar (I've only got your word for it that God doesn't lie).

2. Billions of people round the world could be wrong (billions of people are often wrong about a lot of things). It's a bit weird speaking to someone 'through their heart', isn't it? Wouldn't it be more effective to speak to them through their ears? As you can probably tell I'm not impressed by pious gobbledegook!

3. Many undisputed geniuses may not believe in God and belief in God is not synonymous with genius.

4. Many people believe all sorts of silly things (see 2. above).

5. Modern day Islamic 'martyrs' blow themselves, and others, up in the name of religion. History shows us that people do all sorts of stupid and/or wicked things in the name of religion.

6. I 'honor' these these things - I just don't think that they necessarily involve a God though. And of course a human couldn't create the Universe or a sunrise - don't be silly, who said that a human could do those things?

7. The day that I start taking anything that Sarah Palin says seriously will be the day I fling myself off a cliff!

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 02:17 PM

Numerous people have told me that the Bible is self-evidently true and the absolute word of God for the following reasons especially:

1. The Bible says it is the word of God, and God does not lie; if He did He wouldn't be God.

2. Billions of people around the world, who are familiar with the Bible, are convinced that it is the true word of God because, through it, God has spoken to them in their hearts. Any disagreements they may have about what God wants are trivial in the perspective of eternity.

3. Many undisputed geniuses, like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and, more recently, C.S. Lewis, have also been convinced of the Bible's truth and authority.

4. Many skeptical people witnessed the miracles of Jesus - and some later miracles as well.

5. The early Christian martyrs would not have allowed themselves to be brutally tortured if they hadn't been absolutely convinced of the truth of the Christian message. That includes the apostles, who saw the empty tomb and spoke with Jesus after his Resurrection.

6. Everywhere science looks it sees (but refuses to honor) obvious miracles, like life and the sunrise. No humans could create the universe or make the sun rise, for example.

7. Still skeptical? As Sarah Palin puts it in Going Rogue (p. 431), just "Test Him....You'll see there's no such thing as a coincidence."

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 01:22 PM

... and for got to say

"slightly too much garlic in it". Eh? Sorry, does not compute.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 12:56 PM

Entirely missing the point, Steve. The position of the creationist lobby is that there is some sort of equivalence between science and religion; that the theory of evolution is something that you have to "believe" in. You seem to share that misunderstanding. "Evolution is true." is not a scientific statement but it sounds very much like a declaration of faith.

For a theory to be scientifically valid it has, in principle, to be falsifiable. See TIA's post of 12 Mar 11 - 05:54 PM. Never mind your Spag Bol, how about Newton's Laws, are they "True"?

And, before you start, let's not even begin to think that any of the God/creation stuff in in the remotest sense "evidence." I await.

No, of course not. Creationism offers no threat to the theory of evolution but that doesn't mean it's immune to advances in scientific thought.

My problem isn't with evolution, it's with the appropriateness of the word "true" when referring to a scientific theory.

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 11:59 AM

"And, before you start, let's not even begin to think that any of the God/creation stuff in in the remotest sense "evidence.""

Too true! It's always puzzled me as to why the evidence accumulated by thousands of painstaking scientists, working over many decades, should be dismissed out of hand and we should be forced to accept the statements in an ancient book, of uncertain authorship, as the final word on the subject instead!

The religious fundamentalists tell us that the Bible is "the word of God" - but where is their evidence for that statement?

Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Mar 11 - 11:39 AM

is in