|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2007 : 18:27:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The talk is using the same term with two opposing meanings in the same context. Have you not read anything that has been written? I have written about this. |
Yes, I've read your fantasy. Neither "evolution" nor "theory" is being used by scientists with two opposing meanings. If you think one or the other is, then you should quote an evolutionary biologist doing so, and we can talk from there. |
Again, there are no evolutionary or biological scientists involved in this talk.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
| Edited by - JEROME DA GNOME on 07/21/2007 18:28:54 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 18:35:43 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
Again, there are no evolutionary or biological scientists involved in this talk. |
Way to miss the point... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 18:37:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Also:| This belief causes one to think from the conclusion that god does not exist. |
Says you. Lots of God-believing evolutionary biologists say otherwise. |
I have read many times on this forum aspersions of peoples thoughts and the claim of probable insanity based on the belief in god.
Do you believe that the evolutionary biologists who have a belief in god are either stupid or insane?
If so, why would you trust their opinion of evolution?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 18:39:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Jerome:
Again, there are no evolutionary or biological scientists involved in this talk. |
Way to miss the point...
|
This is the point.
We are talking.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2007 : 18:46:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Also:| This belief causes one to think from the conclusion that god does not exist. |
Says you. Lots of God-believing evolutionary biologists say otherwise. |
I have read many times on this forum aspersions of peoples thoughts and the claim of probable insanity based on the belief in god.
Do you believe that the evolutionary biologists who have a belief in god are either stupid or insane?
If so, why would you trust their opinion of evolution?
|
Strawman alert, Strawman alert! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 18:53:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This is the point.
We are talking. |
What is the point of talking if you fail to communicate? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 20:26:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I have read many times on this forum aspersions of peoples thoughts and the claim of probable insanity based on the belief in god.
Do you believe that the evolutionary biologists who have a belief in god are either stupid or insane?
If so, why would you trust their opinion of evolution? |
Ah, I see that you're going to assume an answer for me, instead of doing me the kindness of remembering that I already argued that a belief in God isn't stupid or insane. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 20:39:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Again, there are no evolutionary or biological scientists involved in this talk. |
There's nobody in this talk who is using the words in opposing fashion in the context of evolutionary biology, either. If you think there is someone matching that description, then post a quote, and we can talk from there. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 20:40:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Again, there are no evolutionary or biological scientists involved in this talk. |
There's nobody in this talk who is using the words in opposing fashion in the context of evolutionary biology, either. If you think there is someone matching that description, then post a quote, and we can talk from there. |
Oh, wait, I misspoke: you are using the words with opposing meanings in this discussion. Quoting yourself, however, won't win you anything good. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 20:52:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Nice use of middle school insults to make your point. |
Ah, but in this case, it's both an insult and a fact. 
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 20:58:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Again, there are no evolutionary or biological scientists involved in this talk. |
There's nobody in this talk who is using the words in opposing fashion in the context of evolutionary biology, either. If you think there is someone matching that description, then post a quote, and we can talk from there.
|
The link in the OP presents this exact topic.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 21:08:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The link in the OP presents this exact topic. |
No, it explains how there's only one scientific meaning for "theory," and it defines the word "evolution" in two different contexts, observation and explanation. You're the only one claiming that either word takes on opposite meanings in a single context, Jerome. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 21:31:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Jerome refuses to actually explain what he thinks, and instead, makes posts with seemingly pointed questions, typically pointed in the wrong direction. Then of course he goes off on different subjects completely ignoring the original.
Please, make a full post. It can be over 30 words long, that's ok. Clearly say what it is you think and why it is you think this. Then take what you're trying to say, and rephrase it, more than once if necessary. Let's face it, your bumper-sticker-style posts are not getting your ideas across and only creating confusion.
|
I have stated my thoughts on this subject several times, in different ways. The point is ignored and trivial aspects are argued.
My ability to be concise should not be held against my thoughts on the subject.
The use of the same word with inverse definitions in the same context of conversation is newspeak. In the discussion of evolution this is done with two words: evolution, and theory. To claim science uses words in a precise manner and then claim that words, in context, are inverse definitions of their original usage is doublethink. I am suggesting that conversation about evolution is presented in a dishonest way. The most likely cause of this would be lack of evidence to support the belief that man is the master.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2007 : 21:47:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The use of the same word with inverse definitions in the same context of conversation is newspeak. In the discussion of evolution this is done with two words: evolution, and theory. |
The problem is that you assert that as fact, but reality shows it to be false. Nobody in science is using the word "theory" with two inverse definitions, and nobody in science is using the word "evolution" with two inverse defintions. You've just made that stuff up.| To claim science uses words in a precise manner and then claim that words, in context, are inverse definitions of their original usage is doublethink. |
Nobody is claiming that, except you, Jerome.| I am suggesting that conversation about evolution is presented in a dishonest way. The most likely cause of this would be lack of evidence to support the belief that man is the master. |
And you can repeat that all you like, but it won't make it true, either.
All you're doing is making three statements of fact, about newspeak, doublethink, and dishonesty, without a shred of evidence to support any one of them. In fact, when asked for evidence supporting the first, you point to a website which carefully explains what scientific terms in a scientific context mean, and how they're not given inverse meanings.
Unless you'd care to enlighten us all as to how an explanation is the inverse of a fact. If you can pull that off, I'll give your argument more credence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com
Topic Locked
