MWF
What is usually considered modern science was born of Bacon and Descartes
about 400 years ago.
Not very many "arguments", if any, survive from even that long ago.
For what matters in science is the data, and the only arguments that
matter are the ones about the data. And arguments expire with the data that gave
them birth.
> I imagine you are learning some right now in law school.
MWF
Some "arguments", some principles of law and even some of the law does
indeed change slowly.
Others evolve quite rapidly, sometimes even during the semester the law
will change.
Even in law, and much more so in the sciences; and in any field trying to
form an argument based on secondary, or worse, references 20 and 26 years out of
date is foolish;
> > . . . National Geographic article dated 12-1976,
> > . . . Science News, vol 100 (November 27, 1971)
JEFF Continues to put foot in mouth:
>Try learning the 10 commandments. They will do you well. If they were followed
>there would be no need for lawyers or law enforcement or any other criminal
>agency.
MWF
Which demonstrates how little you know of the law. Out of 3 years and 88
minimum credit hours required for graduation, a grand total of 6 hours of class
deals with the criminal law, unless you take electives in preparation for a
career as a DA or a criminal defense lawyer.
10 little rules just would not replace the uniform commercial code. Or
negligence tort law. Or even plain ordinary contract law. And I certainly don't
see any consideration given to life estates, easements, covenants which run with
the land, perpetuities and a bunch of other property law. Civilization is far
more complex than can be encompassed by any ten epigrams. Sorry, but that's the
way it is.
> Getting back to the point, What must be assessed
> is not "when" but what is being said and does it still hold true?
MWF
Um, yeah. But in any dynamic field, and particularly in the sciences the
only way to decide is to use _current_ information.
Further, adequate reading in the field to actually understand what is
being discussed is de rigor.
And you don't seem to understand what's going on. But then neither does
any "creation scientist". It's easy to knock down straw men in front of a
credulous audience. Actually understanding what's going on requires some work.
> If so
> -keep it. If not - discard it. The fact is that no advances in the
> fossil record have proven these creation scientists statements false
> since the 70's.
MWF
Even if true, and here you're not providing ANY references, what makes
you think that the only, or even any of the best, data regarding evolution comes
from fossils?
JEFF (in case any one is lost);
> Lucy still is an ape and she did not walk upright.
MWF
And why would that matter?
>
> I know your propensity for fantasy is great
MWF
Really? You got robbed at psychic school.
JEFF blabbers on;
> but you haven't a leg to stand
> on when it comes to transitional forms in the fossil record.
MWF
Walt Jr. said the same thing. He still hasn't got back to me on the FAQ I
copied and sent to him since he seemed to be web browser impaired.
Suffice it to say that the working professionals in the field are quite
satisfied that they have found a large number of "transitional" fossils.
And of course, with each new discovery, the creationists just ratchet
their demands up another notch, not that it matters. If there were no clear
transitional fossils at all, it would not harm evolutionary theory.
> Nice try on
> your appeal to the galley tactic concerning my argument but it is of no
> consequence to me. Australopithecus or Ramapitecus or any other
> pitifulicus are not missing links. If they truly were there would be no
> controversy. Everyone would come forward creationist or otherwise and
> say yah, they are - OK.
MWF
Hah. You obviously don't know much psychology either.
>The fact is they are not.
MWF
Only to a creationist.
>
> To date, and this is February of 1997 when I last checked, there are no
> missing links that can be used to argue that man or any other species
> evolved from anything.
MWF
By your no doubt impossible standards.
> All the evidence, and there are thousands of
> sites and millions of fossils, points to the fact that man has always
> been man and cats have always been cats and monkeys have always been
> monkeys just like God said in Genesis.
MWF
Sure. All them biologists before Darwin were all idiots, and those after
him willful idiots.
Your ignorance is showing.
<snip long diatribe with zero substantive content>
> Instead of admitting that their theory is in crisis and their longly
> held biases are in error though, due to the lack of no transitional
> forms, they say now that evolution happened in shooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrt
> buuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrts and rapid evolvement which left no transitional
> forms in its wake..... Convienient Isn't it? It's also Absurd!
MWF
Upon which principles of molecular biology/genetics and geophysics are
you basing this absurd claim?
<snip more blather>
> Furthermore, Mr. Fisher,
> If you want to look to history in terms of academic dishonesty and
> fraudulent missing link hoaxes, evolutionary scientists are the most
> guilty of perpetual fraud and lack of scientific objectivity and
> integrity of any members of the scientific community. Repeatedly they
> have lied, distorted, and falsified evidence concerning missing links...
MWF
Again, no references. What do you suppose he is referring to? Nebraska
man? Piltdown man?
As ever, the same arguments, thoroughly dead and destroyed, are
resurrected once again, but without reference so that perhaps the unitiated won't
recognize the dishonesty.
<snip more of Jeff in love with his own voice>
>I'm sorry that my one quote wasn't recent enough for you. I guess I can
>go back though also to where your thinking on the subject originates in
>scientific humanistic terms. How about Darwin in the 1800's or how about
>the scopes trial in 1925?
MWF
You really don't have a clue do you.
When I was explaining satirize navigation systems and cesium beam clocks
to my troops or the junior officers, I didn't use Newtonian Physics, nor just
Einsteinian relativity, I had to go all the way through quantum mechanics and was
darned glad none of the devices required any explanations of QCD.
Neither physics, nor biology--of which evolution is but a part--have
stood still.
Unlike creationists who really DO recycle the same theories that
naturalists had ALREADY rejected before Darwin ever wrote his book.
Darwin triumphed rapidly not do to any secular conspiracy (which would
have been a good trick in his day) but rather because there were and are no other
contenders for making sense of biology.
You might try actually learning something about the science which your
are attacking.
Right now you look like one big ignorant idiot.
I'll close with reccomening the same two books I've reccommended to
others;
THE GROWTH OF BIOLOICAL THOUGHT, by Ernst Mayr.
This will at least give you a small clue about how evolutionary thought
and theory actually grew, and yep, Ernst goes all the way back to the ancient
Greeks just to be thourough.
DARWIN'S DANGEROUS IDEA, by Daniel Dennet.
The latest from Dennet and perhaps the finest lay explanation of current
evolutioary theory available.
Come back again when you can demonstrate a mastery of the material
contained within those two books.
'Till then, have fun playing in the sand box with the other little
children.
Ciao.
-- Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student* * * He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine
==================================================================== For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word "help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.