perhaps you didnt see this post.....Amazon.com has a copy waiting for you...believe you me KJ...im not trying to hide anything...I could care less what your beliefs are...you seem like a down right dude..and thats all that matters....im just quoting and i would never mis-quote something just to throw you off......peace
did you read my post or not??? from reading my post you should know where i got these quotes....or would you like me to answer ur question for the 3rd time???
3rd time......KJ....cmon ur a lawyer. dont make ur firm look bad do you want to discuss the contents of those quotes???
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz: I support teaching of evolution in schools, as long as we also teach other unproved popular theories too. Really? Shall we teach alchemy, witchcraft, the four humors, astrology, numerology and the Gods of Egypt and Mt. Olympus in biology class, along with evolution and Biblical Creationism? I do not see a wide spread process of skepticism. When there are objections to evolution based on new evidence or sound arguments, the evolutionists become more defensive in nature than curious about the truth of evolution possibly revealing that evolution is not a factual theory. Perhaps your vision is attenuated. Your posts are uniformly bereft of any scientific support, so, from my vantage point, you arenât looking for any skepticism, therefore you are sure to find none. Common sense absorbs new factual perspectives. It is a fact that scientists observe such and such, which gives us new factual points of view. Common sense is usually right, that is why it is so uncommon. Aristotle asserted that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. His logical common sense reasoning was just like the type you enjoy plying. Aristotle was wrong â and your statement that common sense is usually right is an opinion, unsupported by any evidence. At least I supply evidence to support my conclusions. Youâre a smart guy, but you really need to take a formal debate class. I donât think you really understand how bad a habit it is to constantly advance your opinion as if it were fact. Cause simply cannot be proved by looking at the effect. Even if from this point forward we observed man evolving into different species, this does not prove it happened in the past, or that said changes are not by some design we don't understand. As long as there are possibilities not disproved and we have no way of revisiting the past to observe the changes, we are speculating on the cause. That's why some unknown force we call gravity is a fact, we do not call gravitational theories gravitational facts. The explanations offered are still speculative, because they simply cannot be proved by observation or scientific methodology. A theory is a conclusive process, not a piece of evidence. As it is conclusive without all the facts, it is subject to change and revision or even abandonment. Science is a history of theories once believed since refuted. Though theories may have been popular among scientists, the scientists abandoned those theories in favor of something better. You constantly get lost in theoretical logic. If you believe that evolution does not satisfy the correct burden of scientific proof, and it is thus, no more than speculation, then do real world experiments and prove the published evolutionary experiments wrong. Otherwise, you lose, and more importantly, your philosophic position loses. I did not say it was the original experimenter's duty to repeat a test. I said it is science's duty to repeat a test if they want to know with greater and greater certainty that what they believe is an actuality. Duty is a legal term for an obligation imposed by law. Science has no âduty.â The scientific community has publications, and those publications have reviewers. Scientists do experiments and offer their findings to the publications. The reviewers accept or reject the findings. If the findings are published, anyone is free to try to falsify/repeat the experiments. If you donât like the work that scientists do, then you do the experiments and publish your findings. Donât push your concept of duty back on âScienceâ as if it were a person who could be sanctioned if he/she were in breach. By that logic, the burden of proof is on the atheist to prove that the theist is wrong when he says God exists. No, your analogy is flawed. Proving God is not a scientific endeavor, because God is supernatural, and thus beyond scientific investigation. If you were to say that the burden of proof is on the evolutionist to prove that Biblical Creation is wrong, then that would be the proper analogy. And, evolutionists HAVE proven that, unless you reject radiometric dating as a non scientific measuring tool. Your example show change occurred. It did not show why change occurred, or what is behind that change. It also does not show change occurred in all species. As I have said many times before, you can always fall back on the âinvisible hand of God caused the changeâ argument. But, that is not science. When an experiment shows a change, one can either take it at face value, i.e., that it happens as the result of the natural biological process of DNA to mutate and adapt, or you can say âGod did it.â However, the latter response is not science, it is theology, and it opens the door to saying that EVERYTHING is the product of God, and thus is pure speculation, therefore all science is flawed, as nothing is predicable. The search for truth is a battle against ignorance and falsity. So, you admit it is a battle, at least. Half a point for me. There are no spoils of truth, truth doesn't lead to some ancillary spoil. Truth in itself is self satisfying, so it is the greatest spoil of all human seeking is the truth. Thanks for your elaboration. However, itâs merely your opinion, unsupported by any factual evidence. I did not say evolution was a lie, I only say it is not a known truth. Please do not put words into my comments that are not mine I put no words in your mouth. We were discussing evolution and I was responding to your comments regarding blind faith in an experiment that purportedly shows speciation/evolution. You stated, âWinning with a lie is really winning?â No reasonable person would have taken anything away from that statement in context, other than the inference that you were declaring evolution, and the experiment, a lie. Sounds like ignorant barbarism to me. This combative survival mentality exists when there is scarcity, and apparently there is scarcity of intelligence for this mindset to continue. Your opinion is unsupported by any factual evidence. Seems to me that all of you yearn to be subject to the whim of some higher authority. To me, that just sounds like slavery. I prefer freedom.