In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>in fact.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>>
>>
>> It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>> It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>> environments critters of the same species over time will become
>> different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>> These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>> facts and others.
>
> Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
> evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
> don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
> taller, heavier, etc.

Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.

> And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
> And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
> species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
> should allow this to happen, right?

If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.

We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
pieces of how to get from A to B put together.

 

In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>in fact.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>>
>>
>> It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>> It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>> environments critters of the same species over time will become
>> different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>> These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>> facts and others.
>
> Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
> evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
> don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
> taller, heavier, etc.

Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.

> And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
> And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
> species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
> should allow this to happen, right?

If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.

We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
pieces of how to get from A to B put together.

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>>in fact.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>facts and others.
>>
>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>taller, heavier, etc.
>
>
> Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.

Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
field/theory deals with the origin of the species then? If you ask most
people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
evolution. Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.


>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>should allow this to happen, right?
>
>
> If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
> I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
> critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
> the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
> when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.

Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
both creationists and evolutionists.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.
There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
Bell Labs/Lucent.


> We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
> today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
> all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
> pieces of how to get from A to B put together.

But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
analysis, dating, etc. Check out these links if you'd like to see just
some of the issues.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>>in fact.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>facts and others.
>>
>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>taller, heavier, etc.
>
>
> Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.

Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
field/theory deals with the origin of the species then? If you ask most
people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
evolution. Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.


>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>should allow this to happen, right?
>
>
> If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
> I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
> critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
> the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
> when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.

Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
both creationists and evolutionists.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.
There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
Bell Labs/Lucent.


> We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
> today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
> all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
> pieces of how to get from A to B put together.

But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
analysis, dating, etc. Check out these links if you'd like to see just
some of the issues.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

Matt

 

Brent P wrote:
> In article <3F99D910.4040304@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3F99D4B7.30901@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree. Saying we don't know for sure is accurate. Saying evolution
>>>>>>is based on fact and creation is not based on fact, is simply not
>>>>>>accurate. The only honest answer is that we don't know the complete
>>>>>>answer and likely never will. Lloyd, and others who claim to be
>>>>>>scientists, are incorrect at best, and disingenuous at worst, when they
>>>>>>claim that evolution is fact based.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
>>>>>the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
>>>>>in fact.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's a fact that there are shared traits and genetics between species.
>>>It's a fact that if left in isolation from each other in different
>>>environments critters of the same species over time will become
>>>different. Even a simple study of dog breeding shows this is true.
>>>These things are facts. Evolution is an explaination based on these
>>>facts and others.
>>
>>Evolution as an explanation for variations is a lot different than
>>evolution as an explanation for creation of something from nothing. I
>>don't think anyone argues that species haven't changed over time ... get
>>taller, heavier, etc.
>
>
> Evolution is not about how life started. Only how life got from A to B.

Really? That isn't how the theory is commonly applied. What
field/theory deals with the origin of the species then? If you ask most
people what the scientific alternative to creation is, they will say
evolution. Creation deals with the creation of humans and all other
species from scratch. If evolution doesn't include this, then it really
isn't an alternative as is commonly claimed.


>>And over how much time have you observed critters left in isolation?
>>And how much did they change? Did they become completely different
>>species? Did a dog evolve into a car? Random combinations of elements
>>should allow this to happen, right?
>
>
> If you want to play stupid, stick with Dr. Parker.
> I don't think the researchers who've worked with worms, mice, and other
> critters that can be bred on time scales that allow humans to witness
> the changes are lying. Nor do I think dog breeders and farmers are lying
> when they specifically breed plants and animals for desirable traits.

Not a question of lying necessarily, but often a question of
interpretation of the "facts" with a bias in place. Read this for a
good description of this phenomena which, as the author admits, affects
both creationists and evolutionists.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp

However, even scientists have been know to lie and falsify results.
There are many document instances of this, one just a year or two ago at
Bell Labs/Lucent.


> We know from the fossil record that many of the creatures common place
> today simply did not exist in anything like their present form if at
> all millions of years ago. However step by step the fossil record allows
> pieces of how to get from A to B put together.

But the fossil record is subject to interpretation and errors in
analysis, dating, etc. Check out these links if you'd like to see just
some of the issues.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

Matt

 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vpjal6351k39e7@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > >In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
> > >
> > >I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
> >
> > So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
> degree
> > in?
>
> What journals do YOU read Lloyd?
>

I've asked you this before Lloyd, and you've never answered. You claim to be
a hotshot scientist, what peer reviewed scientific journals do you read?

 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vpjal6351k39e7@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > >In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
> > >
> > >I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
> >
> > So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
> degree
> > in?
>
> What journals do YOU read Lloyd?
>

I've asked you this before Lloyd, and you've never answered. You claim to be
a hotshot scientist, what peer reviewed scientific journals do you read?

 

"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vpjal6351k39e7@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
> news:bnc0hh$r7e$2@puck.cc.emory.edu...
> > In article <bfSlb.3517$275.9363@attbi_s53>,
> > tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > >In article <bn8n53$8s6$9@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> > >
> > >> Tell me, do YOU keep up with the scientific literature?
> > >
> > >I can tell you don't, even on a cursory level.
> >
> > So which journals do you read? What area of science is your graduate
> degree
> > in?
>
> What journals do YOU read Lloyd?
>

I've asked you this before Lloyd, and you've never answered. You claim to be
a hotshot scientist, what peer reviewed scientific journals do you read?

 

"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> writes:

> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> > Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
> > the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
> > in fact.
>
> Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.

"Facts" in the sense of "observable phenomena."

> >> I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
> >> evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't
> >> say either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
> > What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
> > the wrench now doesn't it :)

"Throws the monkey into the wrench?" Never mind, I know what you
meant.

Not at all, and there are quite a few of us who regard that as the
most reasonable explanation -- though we recognise that it's a
completely non-scientific proposal (need to avoid the word
"hypothesis" here).

> And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
> creation? :-)

What exactly would that mean? And what would it have to do with any
of the various newsgroups this is cross-posted to?
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair

 

"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> writes:

> Brent P wrote:
> > In article <3F99A319.703@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> > Evolution is based in facts, evidence. It's an explanation based upon
> > the evidence, the facts. It still could be incorrect, but it is based
> > in fact.
>
> Sorry, but I believe that facts are things that are correct, not incorrect.

"Facts" in the sense of "observable phenomena."

> >> I believe creation is the best available explanation. They believe
> >> evolution is the best available explanation. However, you can't
> >> say either is based on fact or provides a complete explanation.
> > What if the means of creation is evolution? Throws the monkey into
> > the wrench now doesn't it :)

"Throws the monkey into the wrench?" Never mind, I know what you
meant.

Not at all, and there are quite a few of us who regard that as the
most reasonable explanation -- though we recognise that it's a
completely non-scientific proposal (need to avoid the word
"hypothesis" here).

> And what if the means of evolution was intelligent design through
> creation? :-)

What exactly would that mean? And what would it have to do with any
of the various newsgroups this is cross-posted to?
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
Southwestern NM Regional Science and Engr Fair: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair