Difference between religion and science fora

Thank you very much for saying I'm making effective arguments.I think probably it's not that anyone else has recognized that fact, exactly, though I personally think the arguments are clear enough that they should raise some questions in people's minds. I would suspect that if they do raise such questions that instead of their opening up to the possibility and considering it fairly, what happens is that their faith in evolution tells them it is simply impossible for me to be right about anything, especially since I haven't played by the scientific rules, so they simply refuse to consider it further and go on to pull rank and denounce me for every offense to science and reason they can think of. (Either that or they aren't as bright as they think they are, 'cause what I've said ain't rocket science but nobody has as yet said one word to suggest that they even GET what I've said).This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 01:26 PM

Oh now THAT is a weasely evasive answer if ever there was one. I haven't been following the other thread except sporadically but it's absurd if people are actually denying that these things were ever taught. I personally was taught the first six, in Freshman Physical Anthropology at UCLA most likely, in which the basic text was Gaylord Simpson's book, title of which I've forgotten, as well as constantly encountering the same dogmas in my own reading later on, and #7 is dogma being taught now, right on this very forum.My my Jar, I believe you are being stupendously disingenuous here. If they ARE denying that these things were taught, so are they, but you should know better than to hide behind such a big fat lie. it's such common knowledge that to deny it is, well, underhanded. And you didn't answer Randman's question. WHAT evidence?????This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 02:23 PM

What a laugh, Percy. Unparalleled success in explaining. Sure, with imaginative scenarios that ignore everything that contradicts them. The "Depositional environments" idea doesn't account for the actual evidence as I just wrote Arkansas Banana Boy on the Reasons for Rejecting ToE thread, but it sticks despite its absolute absurdity precisely becasue it CANNOT be falsified as it is nothing but an imaginative scenario, however bad, and because so much is invested in this stuff by scientists. That's geology not the ToE of course. But it's the same thing there. You can make the scenario "account" for the data because there is NO way to test it, to falsify it. Why isn't this obvious? It's all a big STORY wrapped around selected data, data which is just as well explained a number of other ways. Everything that supposedly proved descent for instance is JUST as well accounted for by DESIGN instead. JUST AS WELL. A fleet of cars of different makes, models, sizes, colors, engine power etc., but still all cars because of their BASIC DESIGN similarities, and not descended from one another. There's LOTS of evidence that doesn't fit the evo framework but it is made to fit by one sort of rationalization or another. No transitionals? Oh but ALL are transitional. Well they don't LOOK like it, they look like separate groupings. Oh well but everything is a transitional and we'll just define our terms to say so and then you can't dispute it. No gradations? Oh but obviously there were great sudden leaps to explain it, punctuated equilibria. Well obviously that was the case because there's the reptile down there and the bird up there and we KNOW they are related by descent because of the order of their appearance in the column so obviously things just kind of plateaued and then jumped. Yeah, hundreds of times. No evidence, but the thinnest possible plausibility. And genetics shows only similar design between orders and phyla too, just as well explained by design as by descent. JUST AS WELL. But descent is popular despite the absolute lack of proof. Sigh.

This is off topic. Please, no replies. --AdminRight, just call all the demonstrations of the absurdities and the lack of evidence behind the ToE "nonsense" and that'll do it. That's how the whole shebang holds itself up, that and the disingenuous parsing of facts that is Jar's particular talent and it's an airtight indisputable unchallengeable edifice. There's more I didn't say, but what's the point. Ah well. What else did I expect. Reason? Ha!This message has been edited by Admin, 08-01-2005 04:38 PM

The bit about tentativity came up because I was upbraided and rebuked for using the term "proof" and soundly reviled as in "HAVEN'T WE TOLD YOU A MILLION TIMES THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AND THAT ALL SCIENCE IS TENTATIVE AND HOW DARE YOU USE THAT WORD AGAIN YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT SCIENCE and so on and so forth. So, if that's the case, and one is not allowed to use the term "proof" in order to contrast it with the prooflessness of evolution, and all science is tentative, then what is needed is a scale of degrees of tentativity so that I can perhaps humbly begin to meet the exacting terminological requirements for discussing the different degrees of tentativity between, for instance, the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, which can be classed as a super-duper-high-tentativity-just-short-of-Proof, and the Theory of Evolution, which should be rated as an abysmally low-end-tentativity-approximately-at-the-reality-level-of-the Emperor's New Clothes.
Thank you.{Edit: Actually I got the high and the low backwards, but I'm not up to changing the wording at this point. Evo is of course high unprovability-level tentativity, and solarcentric solar system is low-to-nonexistent tentativity.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 03:33 AM

Unfortunately this conflict is not about religion at all. It's about my discussing scientific concepts by showing the absurdity of the prevailing view by pointing out the empirical factors that belie it. There is some illusion that I've been answered but I've answered the answers.In any case, to call this a dispute between religion and science is to miss the point.