Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Perry Marshall is an evolutionist

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Joe Hyde: I just don t buy evolution and plate tectonics, which is my right of course whether it bothers people or not...Sorry! Science changes and we
    Message 1 of 26 , Jul 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Joe Hyde: I just don't buy evolution and plate tectonics, which is my
      right of course whether it bothers people or not...Sorry! 'Science
      changes' and we should be willing to change with it and not hold to tightly
      to today's dogma to miss tomorrow's truth which eventually may be the day
      after tomorrow's error... and so on. Ultimate Truth? I don't think that
      we've found it yet.

      Charles P: Your philosophies are based upon logical reasoning rather than
      empirical methods. That is OK. It takes courage to stand up for what you
      believe to be true. I respect you for your having an open mind, your
      investing the necessary time and effort to study the evidence, and your
      having the courage to interpret that evidence according to your personal
      philosophies. Thank you for continuing to show the same kind of respect
      for those who interpret the evidence differently.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • D R Lindberg
      ... I don t happen to believe in... ... not going to be happy with my responses from that perspective I think. ... Not unhappy, just bewildered. ... can
      Message 2 of 26 , Jul 31, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Hyde <josephhyde@...> wrote:
        >
        > 'D'
        >
        > It seems that the discussion is the theory of 'Plate Tectonics' which
        I don't happen to believe in...
        > and 'subduction' and 'sea floor spreading' is part of that. You are
        not going to be happy with my responses from that perspective I think.
        >
        Not unhappy, just bewildered.


        > So what I did was Google 'evidence against plate tectonics' and as you
        can imagine I did come up with a few, so about all that I would do would
        present some of the links and such. My interest is not 'defending' my
        point of view, it's just in 'expressing it'.

        You give the impression that you first decide what you believe and then
        you look for evidence. I try to do the opposite.

        >
        > I've found out over time that most arguments of such, and about
        evolution, are pretty much a waste of time, unless you've got a good or
        professional background in the subjects 'pro and con' and I am certainly
        not qualified to argue either side.

        That's why I like to try to learn more about things, taking classes,
        reading books, watching science programs, subscribing to science
        podcasts, visiting places, talking to people who have studied a subject,
        always trying to learn more, and to check things out when I can, and
        even then I'm open to new ideas. It doesn't make sense to me to have an
        opinion on something one knows nothing about.
        >
        > BUT I do have my beliefs and opinions formed over a life time of
        hearing both sides, remember I'm a product of our US Educational System
        Kindegarten to High School and College as well as a parent that was a
        University, College, High School, College teacher in Physics, Chemistry,
        Astronomy, Physical Science who was a Christian and brought that
        perspective to it, Science, as others have in the past before him Isaac
        Newton, Blaise Pascal ... and others.
        >
        > I just don't buy evolution and plate tectonics, which is my right of
        course whether it bothers people or not...Sorry!

        Of course, you have every right. I'm just surprised that someone's mind
        would be so made up when he admits not knowing much about the subject.
        Why does it matter so much to you?
        >
        > 'Science changes' and we should be willing to change with it and not
        hold to tightly to today's dogma to miss tomorrow's truth which
        eventually may be the day after tomorrow's error... and so on.

        Of course science changes, but not as much as some denial groups like to
        pretend.

        And the fact that science changes does not mean that you should listen
        to every dingbat you come across. Why are you so convinced that those
        who spend their lives studying a subject must be less knowledgeable or
        less open minded about it than you are, or David Pratt is?

        Scientists are using plate tectonics to try to predict earthquakes. So
        far they can't tell when, but they have a pretty good of idea of where
        they are likely to occur.

        What does Pratt's model help predict?

        Do you think it's a waste of money to try to earthquake-proof buildings
        in Japan, California, Chile, the northwestern USA and other places where
        plate tectonics theory predicts a high probability of serious
        earthquakes?

        >
        > Ultimate Truth? I don't think that we've found it yet.

        Every scientist would agree with you there. That's why they're still
        looking.

        But David Pratt seems to think he has. Did you notice that he does not
        provide any real evidence, only sweeping statements, and out-of-context
        and mostly outdated quotations?

        Since I was discussing subduction, I looked to see what he had to say
        about it, and what evidence he has for his claim that it doesn't exist.

        I didn't see any. Did you?

        Here is a discussion of this subject involving someone who knows far
        more about it than I do. You might find it interesting:
        http://dynamic-earth.blogspot.ca/2008/02/as-far-as-wonky-pseudo-science-\
        goes.html

        >
        > Generally 'good data' doesn't bother me...it's just some
        interpretations of that data as long as we have all of the data on the
        table and as long as we are not ignoring or cherry picking our data to
        support or preferred interpretations or paradigms... and so on and so
        on...

        If you and Pratt and the others are not "not ignoring or cherry picking"
        data, where is your/his/their interpretation of the data I have been
        providing? Hint: Quotations without context are not data.

        But thank you for showing me Pratt's paper.

        And thank you for your polite civil tone. Some people here sound so
        angry, although I don't see how anything I say is important enough for
        anyone to get angry at.

        Cheers!





        A reasonable default assumption is that the scientific consensus is
        usually right; if it isn’t, it will change as the evidence
        becomes clearer. Truth will prevail. It does no good to attack the
        scientific consensus as prejudiced or closed-minded. The consensus will
        change only when it incorporates new and better evidence. One of the
        irrational tactics we’ve seen over and over is for opponents to
        cite one or a handful of studies to support their belief. They
        ridiculously assume that it was new information that the people who
        reached the scientific consensus had failed to consider or that it
        somehow outweighs all the other studies that found the opposite to be
        true.
        - Harriet Hall
        http://www.csicop.org/si/show/playing_by_the_rules/
        <http://www.csicop.org/si/show/playing_by_the_rules/>







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • gluadys
        ... Yes, science changes, and it usually changes in the direction of a truer understanding of the reality of the universe e.g from sun travels around the earth
        Message 3 of 26 , Aug 3 6:27 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Hyde <josephhyde@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > 'Science changes' and we should be willing to change with it and not hold to tightly to today's dogma to miss tomorrow's truth which eventually may be the day after tomorrow's error... and so on.
          >
          >

          Yes, science changes, and it usually changes in the direction of a truer understanding of the reality of the universe e.g from sun travels around the earth to earth travels around the sun; from circular orbits to elliptical orbits; from phlogisten explains flammability to oxygen theory of flammability; from demons cause diseases to parasites, bacteria and viruses cause diseases; etc. etc.

          Will science keep changing? Of course. And hopefully it will continue to change to cast more understanding on the nature of the universe.





          >
          > Ultimate Truth? I don't think that we've found it yet. 
          >




          Of course not. And we won't--at least not through science, because science doesn't even attempt to discover ultimate truth.

          Why does that mean we should disregard the partial truths science has discovered?
        • JamesG
          gluadys: ...science doesn t even attempt to discover ultimate truth. Physicists would very much like to develop a theory of everything
          Message 4 of 26 , Aug 4 8:48 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            gluadys: "...science doesn't even attempt to discover ultimate truth."

            Physicists would very much like to develop a theory of everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything). To me that sounds like attempting to discover ultimate truth.

            Jim in Missouri
          • gluadys
            ... Well, it s not. It is only a theory that offers a complete explanation of physics. Physics, per se, is not ultimate truth.
            Message 5 of 26 , Aug 7 8:29 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > gluadys: "...science doesn't even attempt to discover ultimate truth."
              >
              > Physicists would very much like to develop a theory of everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything). To me that sounds like attempting to discover ultimate truth.
              >
              > Jim in Missouri
              >


              Well, it's not. It is only a theory that offers a complete explanation of physics.

              Physics, per se, is not ultimate truth.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.