Douglas Wilson: Rape and Incest Exceptions
-
Douglas Wilson (Blog and Mablog): Rape and Incest Exceptions[^]
In the end, whatever this pastor thinks, a victim of a rape or incest will fly to a state where abortion is legal or worse abort in a dirty place endangering her own life. Law should not be made from theorical principles but should adapt to reality. This is the reason why religious opinions should not be taken into account.
___________________________________________________________ On the whole human beings want to be good, but not to good and not quite all the time - George Orwell
-
Douglas Wilson (Blog and Mablog): Rape and Incest Exceptions[^]
So in summary: Sarah Palin is consistently moronic, and you shouldn't kill a foetus that looks like God. Good essay. By the way, I found a good website[^] for you. It discusses the flaws inherent in the theory of evolution. [edit] Oh, oh, OHHH! I found another masterpiece[^] "Where would humankind be if we did not have FIRE? And the WHEEL? Or GLASS? Our ancestors learned to make fires and to use fire to make glass from sand. Without glass, we would have no windows, telescopes or microscopes and no glasses. To this day, without glass, we would have no lightbulbs. You could not start a fire or make glass on Mars, or on Venus, or on Jupiter or on any other planet. Fire, wheels and glass are some of the many Divine Gifts that God gave us when he created the Earth."
modified on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:12 AM
-
Douglas Wilson (Blog and Mablog): Rape and Incest Exceptions[^]
"if he is not created in the image of God, then the entire pro-life cause falls to the ground." WTF? Life is life.
A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty… The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. … We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1, 1954)
-
In the end, whatever this pastor thinks, a victim of a rape or incest will fly to a state where abortion is legal or worse abort in a dirty place endangering her own life. Law should not be made from theorical principles but should adapt to reality. This is the reason why religious opinions should not be taken into account.
___________________________________________________________ On the whole human beings want to be good, but not to good and not quite all the time - George Orwell
Ilion believes that abortion is sometimes the right choice.
Ilíon wrote:
The only exception is in those very rare instances in which the pregnancy is *actually* endangering the mother's life. The goal in these very few cases is not to kill the unborn child, but to save the life of the mother.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilion believes that abortion is sometimes the right choice.
Ilíon wrote:
The only exception is in those very rare instances in which the pregnancy is *actually* endangering the mother's life. The goal in these very few cases is not to kill the unborn child, but to save the life of the mother.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
My point is that, in fact, by making abortion illegal you might not prevent a woman (especially one that was raped) from aborting but you might also put the mother's life in danger as she is likely to choose illegal abortion with untrained people and inadequate facilities... One should not try to be consistent with (religious) theory but rather practical...
___________________________________________________________ On the whole human beings want to be good, but not to good and not quite all the time - George Orwell
-
So in summary: Sarah Palin is consistently moronic, and you shouldn't kill a foetus that looks like God. Good essay. By the way, I found a good website[^] for you. It discusses the flaws inherent in the theory of evolution. [edit] Oh, oh, OHHH! I found another masterpiece[^] "Where would humankind be if we did not have FIRE? And the WHEEL? Or GLASS? Our ancestors learned to make fires and to use fire to make glass from sand. Without glass, we would have no windows, telescopes or microscopes and no glasses. To this day, without glass, we would have no lightbulbs. You could not start a fire or make glass on Mars, or on Venus, or on Jupiter or on any other planet. Fire, wheels and glass are some of the many Divine Gifts that God gave us when he created the Earth."
modified on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:12 AM
Thanks for the links, lots of interesting stuff there. :)
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Thanks for the links, lots of interesting stuff there. :)
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
You kiddin' me? :confused:
-
You kiddin' me? :confused:
Not at all. I'm not a big fan of ID as science but far less so of the religion of evolution.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Not at all. I'm not a big fan of ID as science but far less so of the religion of evolution.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Evolution is NOT a religion, and those sites are freakin' ludicrous!
-
Evolution is NOT a religion, and those sites are freakin' ludicrous!
Some are and some aren't, just as for some evolution is a religion and for others just one, or rather several, scientific and pseudo scientific theories amongst many. For example those who claim that 'evolution has been proved' and there are surely many, clearly don't understand the process of science, logic, or in most cases which theory they're even talking about. Despite this their fervent belief is no less than the stereotype of a radical islamist, albeit that the results of their fanaticism are poor education, stalling scientific progress and a vast misapplication of resources, misunderstanding of the historical, geological and meterological records rather than people blowing themselves up. I'll leave others to work out which group will ultimately kill and cripple more people and cause more damage to society and humanity at large.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Some are and some aren't, just as for some evolution is a religion and for others just one, or rather several, scientific and pseudo scientific theories amongst many. For example those who claim that 'evolution has been proved' and there are surely many, clearly don't understand the process of science, logic, or in most cases which theory they're even talking about. Despite this their fervent belief is no less than the stereotype of a radical islamist, albeit that the results of their fanaticism are poor education, stalling scientific progress and a vast misapplication of resources, misunderstanding of the historical, geological and meterological records rather than people blowing themselves up. I'll leave others to work out which group will ultimately kill and cripple more people and cause more damage to society and humanity at large.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Phhh, don't give me that crap. Evolution is easily one of the most fundamental principles of biology. It is a scientific theory, and there is no doubt that it occurs, in the same way that nobody doubts the theory of relativity, continental drift, atomic theory, and cell theory. It has even been observed in laboratories, where a colony of E. Coli adapted to metabolize citrate.
-
Phhh, don't give me that crap. Evolution is easily one of the most fundamental principles of biology. It is a scientific theory, and there is no doubt that it occurs, in the same way that nobody doubts the theory of relativity, continental drift, atomic theory, and cell theory. It has even been observed in laboratories, where a colony of E. Coli adapted to metabolize citrate.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Phhh, don't give me that crap.
Hmm, very err scientific, lets see.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Evolution is easily one of the most fundamental principles of biology.
Indeed but choosing a 'theory' to be a 'fundamental principle' might be considered a mistake ouside of a religious context.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It is a scientific theory
Yes, in fact a clutch of theories that have varied over the years. For example much of what Darwin originally proposed is no longer part of the theory because evelotionists accept it has been disproven by genetics. (In fact genetics invalidate the entire theory but that's another issue)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
the same way that nobody doubts the theory of relativity
Very few understand relativity (either special or general), even less are qualified to test it and at least one of those doubted it. Einstein himself did not like the 'consequences' and thought a simpler explanation might eventually be found. It is also a classic paradigm theory which is very hard to disprove because the results of any experiment done to test it will be interpretted using the theory itself. As such it may not be a disprovable theory at all but more a thought paradigm for interpretting the results of physics experiments. If so it is likely incorrect but who can say.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
continental drift
Nice idea but never been 'observed' over long enough to be responsible for much of what is attributed to it ( rather like evolution ). It's only 'useful' as an explanation for the state of things if you make a whole lot of assumptions outsode the scope of the theory itself, like the age of the Earth. ( rather like evolution )
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
atomic theory
See www.blacklightpower.com for a completely alternative atomic theory. Not necessarily better or worse but it proves the point that $20 million serious people do 'doubt'
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
cell theory
Is still, as I understand it, very much in development and can hardly as such a complex area of research be said to be a single theory. New discoveries in the operation and lifecycle of cells are be
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Phhh, don't give me that crap.
Hmm, very err scientific, lets see.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Evolution is easily one of the most fundamental principles of biology.
Indeed but choosing a 'theory' to be a 'fundamental principle' might be considered a mistake ouside of a religious context.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It is a scientific theory
Yes, in fact a clutch of theories that have varied over the years. For example much of what Darwin originally proposed is no longer part of the theory because evelotionists accept it has been disproven by genetics. (In fact genetics invalidate the entire theory but that's another issue)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
the same way that nobody doubts the theory of relativity
Very few understand relativity (either special or general), even less are qualified to test it and at least one of those doubted it. Einstein himself did not like the 'consequences' and thought a simpler explanation might eventually be found. It is also a classic paradigm theory which is very hard to disprove because the results of any experiment done to test it will be interpretted using the theory itself. As such it may not be a disprovable theory at all but more a thought paradigm for interpretting the results of physics experiments. If so it is likely incorrect but who can say.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
continental drift
Nice idea but never been 'observed' over long enough to be responsible for much of what is attributed to it ( rather like evolution ). It's only 'useful' as an explanation for the state of things if you make a whole lot of assumptions outsode the scope of the theory itself, like the age of the Earth. ( rather like evolution )
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
atomic theory
See www.blacklightpower.com for a completely alternative atomic theory. Not necessarily better or worse but it proves the point that $20 million serious people do 'doubt'
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
cell theory
Is still, as I understand it, very much in development and can hardly as such a complex area of research be said to be a single theory. New discoveries in the operation and lifecycle of cells are be
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Indeed but choosing a 'theory' to be a 'fundamental principle' might be considered a mistake ouside of a religious context.
Nobody 'chose' it to be, it just turned out to be.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Yes, in fact a clutch of theories that have varied over the years. For example much of what Darwin originally proposed is no longer part of the theory because evelotionists accept it has been disproven by genetics. (In fact genetics invalidate the entire theory but that's another issue)
Like what? Furthermore, no, genetics does NOT invalidate the entire theory; Charles Darwin couldn't explain the fundamental mechanisms of evolution because nobody had any idea about genetics, and THEN it was discovered and expanded on and found to explain perfectly how evolution worked. It vindicated the theory, and I'm sure that hundreds of thousands of biologists haven't just failed to notice that their entire specialty makes no sense.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Very few understand relativity (either special or general)
Uhh, I think you'll find that a LOT of people understand it - it's an incredibly well-understood theory, overall. Just ask 73Zeppelin, he'll tell you.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Einstein himself did not like the 'consequences' and thought a simpler explanation might eventually be found.
He also finally succumbed to the evidence. Which is noteworthy because it shows the morons who insist on calling evolution 'Darwinism' that the discoverer of a theory doesn't have absolute authority over it, and it doesn't matter who they are either, so trying to discredit Charles Darwin is not akin to discrediting evolutionary theory.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
It is also a classic paradigm theory which is very hard to disprove because the results of any experiment done to test it will be interpretted using the theory itself. As such it may not be a disprovable theory at all but more a thought paradigm for interpretting the results of physics experiments. If so it is likely incorrect but who can say.
...what? It would actually be trivially easy to disprove if it was false. But, it's hard to argue with the bending of light, atomic clocks, particle accelerators etc.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Indeed but choosing a 'theory' to be a 'fundamental principle' might be considered a mistake ouside of a religious context.
Nobody 'chose' it to be, it just turned out to be.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Yes, in fact a clutch of theories that have varied over the years. For example much of what Darwin originally proposed is no longer part of the theory because evelotionists accept it has been disproven by genetics. (In fact genetics invalidate the entire theory but that's another issue)
Like what? Furthermore, no, genetics does NOT invalidate the entire theory; Charles Darwin couldn't explain the fundamental mechanisms of evolution because nobody had any idea about genetics, and THEN it was discovered and expanded on and found to explain perfectly how evolution worked. It vindicated the theory, and I'm sure that hundreds of thousands of biologists haven't just failed to notice that their entire specialty makes no sense.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Very few understand relativity (either special or general)
Uhh, I think you'll find that a LOT of people understand it - it's an incredibly well-understood theory, overall. Just ask 73Zeppelin, he'll tell you.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Einstein himself did not like the 'consequences' and thought a simpler explanation might eventually be found.
He also finally succumbed to the evidence. Which is noteworthy because it shows the morons who insist on calling evolution 'Darwinism' that the discoverer of a theory doesn't have absolute authority over it, and it doesn't matter who they are either, so trying to discredit Charles Darwin is not akin to discrediting evolutionary theory.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
It is also a classic paradigm theory which is very hard to disprove because the results of any experiment done to test it will be interpretted using the theory itself. As such it may not be a disprovable theory at all but more a thought paradigm for interpretting the results of physics experiments. If so it is likely incorrect but who can say.
...what? It would actually be trivially easy to disprove if it was false. But, it's hard to argue with the bending of light, atomic clocks, particle accelerators etc.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Nobody 'chose' it to be, it just turned out to be.
You might want to think a bit more about that statement.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Uhh, I think you'll find that a LOT of people understand it - it's an incredibly well-understood theory, overall.
More like a lot of people think they understand it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
it's hard to argue with the bending of light, atomic clocks, particle accelerators etc.
No one is arguing that these things occur( or are at least observed ), but assuming that the first explanation of why must be be correct simply becuse it is an explanation isn't very scientific. How very applicable to evolution
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It also explains volcanoes, mountain ranges, earthquakes, continents, etc.
So does the 'angry mountain god' theory of the Crocodile men of Papua New Ginuea to their complete satisfaction, this does not make it right or wrong, that's a separate matter which is not dependent on how convenient the explanation is.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
nobody could possibly deny that cells exist.
Indeed and that is because they are a name given to an observation, not a theory of why and how it got that way from an unobserved state. To mistake the evidence of the former for proof of the later is seriously broken thinking.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And it took them 31,500 generations to use this already well-established trait?
Giving clear evidence in just one experiment that the supposed evolution of higher species e.g. mammals is not merely improbably but ridiculously improbable.... 30,000generations * 25year average lifespan = 750000years to alter an enzyme or 2, probably back to a preexistant variant state broken by mutation. So to get a couple of thousand genes from scratch, at a guess..., oh whoops we just ran out years, better start redating those ice core samples using a ^4 scale exponential just isn't cutting it... :rolleyes: You're an intelligent young man who should be quite capabale of seeing through the Swiss cheese of evolution.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Indeed but choosing a 'theory' to be a 'fundamental principle' might be considered a mistake ouside of a religious context.
Nobody 'chose' it to be, it just turned out to be.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Yes, in fact a clutch of theories that have varied over the years. For example much of what Darwin originally proposed is no longer part of the theory because evelotionists accept it has been disproven by genetics. (In fact genetics invalidate the entire theory but that's another issue)
Like what? Furthermore, no, genetics does NOT invalidate the entire theory; Charles Darwin couldn't explain the fundamental mechanisms of evolution because nobody had any idea about genetics, and THEN it was discovered and expanded on and found to explain perfectly how evolution worked. It vindicated the theory, and I'm sure that hundreds of thousands of biologists haven't just failed to notice that their entire specialty makes no sense.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Very few understand relativity (either special or general)
Uhh, I think you'll find that a LOT of people understand it - it's an incredibly well-understood theory, overall. Just ask 73Zeppelin, he'll tell you.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Einstein himself did not like the 'consequences' and thought a simpler explanation might eventually be found.
He also finally succumbed to the evidence. Which is noteworthy because it shows the morons who insist on calling evolution 'Darwinism' that the discoverer of a theory doesn't have absolute authority over it, and it doesn't matter who they are either, so trying to discredit Charles Darwin is not akin to discrediting evolutionary theory.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
It is also a classic paradigm theory which is very hard to disprove because the results of any experiment done to test it will be interpretted using the theory itself. As such it may not be a disprovable theory at all but more a thought paradigm for interpretting the results of physics experiments. If so it is likely incorrect but who can say.
...what? It would actually be trivially easy to disprove if it was false. But, it's hard to argue with the bending of light, atomic clocks, particle accelerators etc.
Ravel, you have to understand that Matthew is afraid of truth because his fragile worldview is built upon faith in the imaginary. Ironically, he is unwilling apply his so-called "criticisms" of science to his own faith and belief. It's rather pitiful because the more he tries to dispel known fact as fiction the more he looks ridiculous for he is undermining the premise of his own religious view. Anyways, he used to irritate me, now I feel sorry for him and don't pay much attention to him. I really wouldn't worry about how he thinks the world operates.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Nobody 'chose' it to be, it just turned out to be.
You might want to think a bit more about that statement.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Uhh, I think you'll find that a LOT of people understand it - it's an incredibly well-understood theory, overall.
More like a lot of people think they understand it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
it's hard to argue with the bending of light, atomic clocks, particle accelerators etc.
No one is arguing that these things occur( or are at least observed ), but assuming that the first explanation of why must be be correct simply becuse it is an explanation isn't very scientific. How very applicable to evolution
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It also explains volcanoes, mountain ranges, earthquakes, continents, etc.
So does the 'angry mountain god' theory of the Crocodile men of Papua New Ginuea to their complete satisfaction, this does not make it right or wrong, that's a separate matter which is not dependent on how convenient the explanation is.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
nobody could possibly deny that cells exist.
Indeed and that is because they are a name given to an observation, not a theory of why and how it got that way from an unobserved state. To mistake the evidence of the former for proof of the later is seriously broken thinking.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And it took them 31,500 generations to use this already well-established trait?
Giving clear evidence in just one experiment that the supposed evolution of higher species e.g. mammals is not merely improbably but ridiculously improbable.... 30,000generations * 25year average lifespan = 750000years to alter an enzyme or 2, probably back to a preexistant variant state broken by mutation. So to get a couple of thousand genes from scratch, at a guess..., oh whoops we just ran out years, better start redating those ice core samples using a ^4 scale exponential just isn't cutting it... :rolleyes: You're an intelligent young man who should be quite capabale of seeing through the Swiss cheese of evolution.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You might want to think a bit more about that statement.
Really? I see no reason to. People were studying chemistry (in some form) long before atomic theory came along and explained HOW it happened, but does the making of atomic and molecular theory as the fundamental principle of chemistry qualify as a mistake?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
More like a lot of people think they understand it.
Good argument. You're right, physicists are basically just clowning around pretending to have real jobs.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
No one is arguing that these things occur( or are at least observed ), but assuming that the first explanation of why must be be correct simply becuse it is an explanation isn't very scientific.
Where are you pulling this treasure from? Are you completely blind to scientific method? These scientists aren't just going, "oh well, good enough". These have all been tests of relativity, and they have all fit in with it fantastically. Seems a pretty good reason to consider it a credible theory, seeing as how it just keeps on agreeing with reality.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
How very applicable to evolution
Gimme a break... :doh:
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
So does the 'angry mountain god' theory of the Crocodile men of Papua New Ginuea to their complete satisfaction, this does not make it right or wrong, that's a separate matter which is not dependent on how convenient the explanation is.
It explains it in a way that agrees with existing theories and data. It makes definite predictions about the future. It is also falsifiable. I think that qualifies it as a scientific theory.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Indeed and that is because they are a name given to an observation, not a theory of why and how it got that way from an unobserved state. To mistake the evidence of the former for proof of the later is seriously broken thinking.
Good thing then that cell theory isn't just a random name given to something completely opaque to research. Because then modern medicine wouldn't exist.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Giving clear evidence in just one experiment that the
-
Ravel, you have to understand that Matthew is afraid of truth because his fragile worldview is built upon faith in the imaginary. Ironically, he is unwilling apply his so-called "criticisms" of science to his own faith and belief. It's rather pitiful because the more he tries to dispel known fact as fiction the more he looks ridiculous for he is undermining the premise of his own religious view. Anyways, he used to irritate me, now I feel sorry for him and don't pay much attention to him. I really wouldn't worry about how he thinks the world operates.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
Yeah, but I'm enjoying this! :)
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Nobody 'chose' it to be, it just turned out to be.
You might want to think a bit more about that statement.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Uhh, I think you'll find that a LOT of people understand it - it's an incredibly well-understood theory, overall.
More like a lot of people think they understand it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
it's hard to argue with the bending of light, atomic clocks, particle accelerators etc.
No one is arguing that these things occur( or are at least observed ), but assuming that the first explanation of why must be be correct simply becuse it is an explanation isn't very scientific. How very applicable to evolution
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It also explains volcanoes, mountain ranges, earthquakes, continents, etc.
So does the 'angry mountain god' theory of the Crocodile men of Papua New Ginuea to their complete satisfaction, this does not make it right or wrong, that's a separate matter which is not dependent on how convenient the explanation is.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
nobody could possibly deny that cells exist.
Indeed and that is because they are a name given to an observation, not a theory of why and how it got that way from an unobserved state. To mistake the evidence of the former for proof of the later is seriously broken thinking.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
And it took them 31,500 generations to use this already well-established trait?
Giving clear evidence in just one experiment that the supposed evolution of higher species e.g. mammals is not merely improbably but ridiculously improbable.... 30,000generations * 25year average lifespan = 750000years to alter an enzyme or 2, probably back to a preexistant variant state broken by mutation. So to get a couple of thousand genes from scratch, at a guess..., oh whoops we just ran out years, better start redating those ice core samples using a ^4 scale exponential just isn't cutting it... :rolleyes: You're an intelligent young man who should be quite capabale of seeing through the Swiss cheese of evolution.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
30,000generations * 25year average lifespan = 750000years to alter an enzyme or 2, probably back to a preexistant variant state broken by mutation. So to get a couple of thousand genes from scratch, at a guess..., oh whoops we just ran out years, better start redating those ice core samples using a ^4 scale exponential just isn't cutting it... Roll eyes
i guess my degree in biochemistry didn't teach me right, i see now i should have enrolled in the Matthew Faithful School of Crap I was going to get into a big long argument and pick apart your bloody stupid statements (for example, it's nice that you know exactly where the Cit gene was in that E. Coli population that was *gasp* there all along and just decided to turn on because it was bored, so how about helping out and pointing out where it is on NCBI, genius), but frankly, anybody who listens to you on the subject of evolution deserves whatever misinformation they get.
- F
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You might want to think a bit more about that statement.
Really? I see no reason to. People were studying chemistry (in some form) long before atomic theory came along and explained HOW it happened, but does the making of atomic and molecular theory as the fundamental principle of chemistry qualify as a mistake?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
More like a lot of people think they understand it.
Good argument. You're right, physicists are basically just clowning around pretending to have real jobs.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
No one is arguing that these things occur( or are at least observed ), but assuming that the first explanation of why must be be correct simply becuse it is an explanation isn't very scientific.
Where are you pulling this treasure from? Are you completely blind to scientific method? These scientists aren't just going, "oh well, good enough". These have all been tests of relativity, and they have all fit in with it fantastically. Seems a pretty good reason to consider it a credible theory, seeing as how it just keeps on agreeing with reality.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
How very applicable to evolution
Gimme a break... :doh:
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
So does the 'angry mountain god' theory of the Crocodile men of Papua New Ginuea to their complete satisfaction, this does not make it right or wrong, that's a separate matter which is not dependent on how convenient the explanation is.
It explains it in a way that agrees with existing theories and data. It makes definite predictions about the future. It is also falsifiable. I think that qualifies it as a scientific theory.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Indeed and that is because they are a name given to an observation, not a theory of why and how it got that way from an unobserved state. To mistake the evidence of the former for proof of the later is seriously broken thinking.
Good thing then that cell theory isn't just a random name given to something completely opaque to research. Because then modern medicine wouldn't exist.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Giving clear evidence in just one experiment that the
You're getting closer more or less.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
does the making of atomic and molecular theory as the fundamental principle of chemistry qualify as a mistake?
It would do if it's wrong, and would be highly sensible if it's right.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
These have all been tests of relativity, and they have all fit in with it fantastically. Seems a pretty good reason to consider it a credible theory, seeing as how it just keeps on agreeing with reality.
Good, you've got test number 1. Relativity is a good theory because it fits with all the evidence. It remains a theory but it's the best working model we have and hasn't been disproved yet, so we keep testing.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Good thing then that cell theory isn't just a random name given to something completely opaque to research. Because then modern medicine wouldn't exist.
Absolutely.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
It explains it in a way that agrees with existing theories and data. It makes definite predictions about the future. It is also falsifiable. I think that qualifies it as a scientific theory.
Right on! Now apply the same test to evolution...
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
watertight theory
You are welcome to believe in such things but science accepts no such creature. Remember believing in Gryphons is sad, worshipping them is pitiable.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
it has been under intense scientific scrutiny for 150 years, and is still standing straight and tall.
No, it has wriggled squirmed, failed, fallen flat on its face, reinvented itself several times, been utterly discredited and evetually morphed into a faith based system of interpretting evidence and distorting the practice and structures of large areas of science. It has become the very thing its most strident evangelists claim to most despise.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage." Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)