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

Re: Piltdown man (was: One last comment to Richard)

Expand Messages
  • bestonnet_00
    ... Consensus certainly isn t perfect, but often it is the best we ve got (and science is self-correcting so these things come out over time provided you wait
    Message 1 of 25 , Sep 28, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "spacehut1" wrote:
      > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 wrote:
      > > Just because Piltdown man was hoaxed doesn't mean that the rest
      > > of the evidence for evolution was hoaxed.
      >
      > - You seem to be missing the point. I was responding to Richard's
      > repeated emphasis of relying on consensus to get the truth. The
      > consensus was that Piltdown Man was an established fact that proved
      > evolution; so much consensus that it even poisoned children's minds
      > in evolutionist schoolbooks.

      Consensus certainly isn't perfect, but often it is the best we've got (and science is self-correcting so these things come out over time provided you wait long enough).

      Science does have a history of getting to the bottom of things that is unmatched by anything (you could argue that technology matches it, but technology is really just applied science), religion, politics, etc have not done anywhere near as well at describing the world we live in.

      I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though it may be over anything else simply because everything else is worse.
    • spacehut1
      Consensus is not always right! Duh! - You conveniently left that part out of your consensus email 11980.
      Message 2 of 25 , Oct 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        "Consensus is not always right! Duh!" - You conveniently left that part out of your consensus email 11980.




        --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
        >
        > Consensus is not always right! Duh!
        >
        > Richard.
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...>
        > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 3:31 PM
        > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Piltdown man (was: One last comment to
        > Richard)
        >
        >
        >
        > (see bottom post)
        >
        >
        >
        > "Just because Piltdown man was hoaxed doesn't mean that the rest of the
        > evidence for evolution was hoaxed." - You seem to be missing the point. I
        > was responding to Richard's repeated emphasis of relying on consensus to get
        > the truth. The consensus was that Piltdown Man was an established fact that
        > proved evolution; so much consensus that it even poisoned children's minds
        > in evolutionist schoolbooks.
        >
        > "..doesn't mean that the rest of the evidence for evolution was hoaxed." - I
        > could point to other examples of evidence hoaxes in the evolution
        > encyclopedias (as though Piltdown was the only one), but that's getting
        > outside my line of thought with Richard
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
      • spacehut1
        science is self-correcting so these things come out over time provided you wait long enough. - Right now you could be believing multiple lies, we just
        Message 3 of 25 , Oct 6, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          "science is self-correcting so these things come out over time provided you wait long enough." - Right now you could be believing multiple lies, we just don't know, science hasn't had enough time.

          "I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though it may be over anything else..." - This is intriguing. Faith is apparently necessary with science. If you believe the scientific consensus, you have a lot more faith than I do. I'm much more into critical thinking and distrust of the mainstream, in search of suppressed evidence. Evolutionists are still running one of the biggest shamwows on the planet - who would have thought the Origin of Species was written by a creationist? This was noted by Darwin way back in his autobiography, but you won't hear evolutionists mention that in schoolbooks. How much longer will it take to self-correct?






          --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "spacehut1" wrote:
          > > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 wrote:
          > > > Just because Piltdown man was hoaxed doesn't mean that the rest
          > > > of the evidence for evolution was hoaxed.
          > >
          > > - You seem to be missing the point. I was responding to Richard's
          > > repeated emphasis of relying on consensus to get the truth. The
          > > consensus was that Piltdown Man was an established fact that proved
          > > evolution; so much consensus that it even poisoned children's minds
          > > in evolutionist schoolbooks.
          >
          > Consensus certainly isn't perfect, but often it is the best we've got (and science is self-correcting so these things come out over time provided you wait long enough).
          >
          > Science does have a history of getting to the bottom of things that is unmatched by anything (you could argue that technology matches it, but technology is really just applied science), religion, politics, etc have not done anywhere near as well at describing the world we live in.
          >
          > I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though it may be over anything else simply because everything else is worse.
          >
        • spacehut1
          So you have something against University professors??? Biased are you? - No. I am under the impression professors are capable of twisting student minds,
          Message 4 of 25 , Oct 6, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            "So you have something against University professors??? Biased are you?" - No. I am under the impression professors are capable of twisting student minds, and your writings fit right in. Prejudging are you? Your perception is wrong again.

            ".. we both would say it's a tree, but we would see it differently .." - But that's just your perception. Perhaps the consensus does not even see a tree.

            "Whether or not your perception is correct would depend on the perceptions of others .." - This seems to contradict your previous statements in message 11980: "…comparing the perception of one person by that of one other person is not relevant. Think of comparing one's perception with a multitude of perceptions of other people, and then repeating that under differing situations."

            "Or would see a ghost, like the "appearances" of the resurrected Christ?--grossly expanded in witnesses." - Are you comparing your perception to others? Not supposed to do that, again 11980: "…comparing the perception of one person by that of one other person is not relevant. Think of comparing one's perception with a multitude of perceptions of other people, and then repeating that under differing situations." At least you agree they were witnesses.

            "Of course there can be comparisons of perceptions. I saw the car on the right causing the collision; you saw it was the car on the left. Who's right?" - Again, you are violating 11980. It is irrelevant (as you wrote) to compare "the perception of one person by that of one other person." The police should not even ask these two people questions to help figure out what happened. So also the judge, in fact the court should stop hearing such cases altogether.

            "What do you think consensus means?" - Majority, or general view.

            "I referred to it only because you did first. So we agree to lay that guy aside now?" - I apologize for the confusion. The post with the elephant story ran together and appeared to be from you. I hereby abandon my line of thought with the elephant story.

            "Yes, I do have opinions … Never follow my opinions. Strive for truth yourself …" - So, you have opinion, instead of truth? Is it true one should strive for truth, or is that just your opinion? Is it true you have opinions? Is it true one should never follow your opinions? If your opinions aren't worth following, then why even have them?

            "Strive for truth yourself … I follow Socrates, in that we never have the truth." - Is that true? Is it true that we never have truth, or is that just your opinion (which we should never follow, as you wrote)? In 11980 you wrote, "Truth is attained through evidence and reason." How can truth be attained if we never have the truth? And you claim the Bible has contradictions, there's plenty in your posts. Also in 11980, "Again, truth is not found through one's opinion, but rather the methodology well established by science." Truth can be found? Is that true?

            ""So it's kind of a frogamander, if you will," said Anderson." - Who is Anderson?

            "Detectives use more intuition. Science uses hypothetical deduction with testing for conformation." – I include antiquity and historic evidence (don't forget cold cases and forensics). This is where I started the string for Darwin's Creator. Your paragraphs for fossils are so scientific and detailed – did you just copy and paste that info. from other sites? And, are these paragraphs true, or just your perception?


            My reply to the bible "contradictions" posts is forthcoming. Thanks!





            --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "bob bobby" <spacehut1@...>
            > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:54 PM
            > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: One last comment to Richard
            >
            >
            >
            > Thanks for the reply, Richard!
            > You wrote, “comparing the perception of one person
            > by that of one other person is not relevant.” But, that is
            > exactly what you did and are doing right now. You placed
            > your perception up to those touching the elephant, and your
            > perception is that all 3 touchers were incorrect, by
            > comparing their perceptions between them. Please let me
            > know where you obtained this line of thought â€" from a
            > University professor? (this is a serious question)
            >
            > R: Again CONSENSUS. In controversial cases, consensus is necessary. My
            > scenario was meant to show there are differences in perceptions. Actually,
            > as scientists have show, there never is more than one exact perception, even
            > within only one individual. Of course, small differences are not noticed.
            > If you see a particular tree, and I also see that tree, we both would say
            > it's a tree, but we would see it differently. So you have something against
            > University professors??? Biased are you?
            >
            > Further, you presently perceive that my perception is
            > incorrect â€" a conclusion reached by comparing our two
            > perceptions.
            >
            > R: Whether or not your perception is correct would depend on the
            > perceptions of others, usually. The real test would come from a number of
            > others and over different periods of time. Could it be that in mass
            > psychology a whole group of people would have seen a tree there, but after a
            > while (hours, days?) it disappeared. Or would see a ghost, like the
            > "appearances" of the resurrected Christ?--grossly expanded in witnesses.
            > Were they all so biased as to be particularly subject to delusion? Very
            > possibly yes.
            >
            > You mention that not all perceptions are untrue (which I
            > agree). Thus, one can compare perceptions and see which
            > is true and false, as you did with the elephant, right?
            >
            > R: Of course there can be comparisons of perceptions. I saw the car on the
            > right causing the collision; you saw it was the car on the left. Who's
            > right? Whose on first base? The elephant is more than its parts.
            >
            > Please provide more information about Consensus, as you
            > write of. I would like to compare your perception with
            > others to see if anyone got it right â€" kind of like your
            > elephant story. The elephant method is a good way to
            > compare, right?
            >
            > R: I don't like the elephant concept particularly, but go for it if you
            > wish. First let me ask you: What do you think consensus means?
            >
            > Please be more specific on the Providence paragraph. I do
            > not recall mentioning anything about Providence in my
            > paragraph, which you were attempting to answer.
            >
            > R: The school named "Providence." That would be a cue to what kind of
            > school that would be. Of course it might refer to Providence, RI, in which
            > case I would be wrong.
            >
            > The questions about the elephant are questions you should
            > be asking yourself. I did not introduce the elephant, nor do
            > I rely on it, as you did; it is nonsense to answer to something
            > I do not rely on. What are your answers? Did you presuppose
            > it was an elephant, or did you see the elephant?
            >
            > R: Good. Forget the elephant. I referred to it only because you did first.
            > So we agree to lay that guy aside now? I haven't seen an elephant for a long
            > time.
            >
            > You wrote, “truth is not found through one's opinion” - I
            > agree with your perception on that. However, you previously
            > spoke of having your own opinion. So, if one is going to
            > find the truth it’s not going to be with listening to your
            > opinion (again, you admit to having opinion). Right? Also,
            > why would you even have opinion, if you have the truth?
            >
            > R: Yes, I do have opinions. These are some theories (1) for which I lack
            > sufficient evidence and reasoning for confirmation at the time, or (2) for
            > personal beliefs based on evidence and reason. Never follow my opinions.
            > Strive for truth yourself, without being determined by anyone else. I
            > follow Socrates, in that we never have the truth. We have only good
            > theories, based on probabilities, sometimes later proven wrong. Are you
            > familiar with the Black Swan scenario?
            >
            > You spoke of my perception as lacking “any evidence.”
            > Your perception is not true, again. Personally, I prefer
            > investigating evidence (like police detectives).
            > Unfortunately, this string is more philosophic.
            >
            > R: Good idea. Go for evidence. Like science. Detectives use more
            > intuition. Science uses hypothetical deduction with testing for
            > conformation. I am quite familiar with your quoting on the Piltdown
            > "missing link." You do have the correct conception that science sometimes
            > fails in its task, even sometimes with fraudalent claims. So science isn't
            > perfect. Were you expecting perfection from science? I surely am not. But
            > here is a good example of a problem. You, as the Creationist groups, take
            > one, two, three, or so examples of failures in science to represent many
            > thousands and hundreds of thousands of examples that have proven correct.
            > That's bad reasoning, and from which you can learn something, if you are so
            > inclined.
            >
            > There are missing links between different genera: Speciation, or fossil
            > transitions, are quite common, for example fish to mammal with
            > Archaeopteryx, commonly called Fishapod, and also in the reverse from mammal
            > to fish. Another dinasaurs to birds (although controversial): dinosaur
            > Beipiaosaurus sported two feather types, one a stiff, unbranched filament
            > that is the first evidence of a feather, and A fossil bonanza in
            > northwestern China shows that the ancestors of T. rex and other reptile
            > giants started small, 165-155 m.y. ago: a theropod, a type of two-legged,
            > meat-eating dinosaur from the lineage that led to birds. Gerobatrachus
            > hottoni, the animal looked somewhat like a salamander with a stubby tail and
            > froglike ears. "So it's kind of a frogamander, if you will," said Anderson.
            > An ancient ancestor of the elephant from 37 million years ago lived in water
            > and had a similar lifestyle to a hippo, a fossil study has suggested. The
            > animal was said to be similar to a tapir, a hoofed mammal which looks like a
            > cross between a horse and a rhino.
            >
            > For ape to human the latest is "Id", 47 m.y. old primate fossil. The famous
            > "Lucy" is Australopithicus afarensis, not totally ape and yet not quite
            > human, dated 3.2 to 3.8 m.y. old, thus transitional. And humans from fish:
            > Tiktaalik, the 375-million-year-old fossil believed to be a "missing link"
            > between fish and the first land vertebrates, or tetra­pods; this might
            > explain why there are some remarkable similarities in body plan. Check this
            > out: http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0812/features/fish_out_of_water.shtml
            > Macroevolution now is quite common, along with microevolution. With the
            > completion of Chimp DNA, we now know we have 99% the same DNA as do Chimps.
            >
            > So that's for starters.
            >
            > Richard.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Science is highly esteemed in your posting (I like science,
            > too). Yet, we still must be careful, because I can point to
            > examples where the Consensus of evolutionist “science”
            > falsely perceived a “truth” and thereby mislead the
            > perceptions of people all over the world. Note how well
            > established it was:
            > “On December 18, 1912, newspapers throughout the world
            > blared sensational headlines: Missing Link Found â€"
            > Darwin’s Theory Proved. The source of all the excitement
            > was a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex in the southern English
            > countryside, where a local amateur archaeologist had found
            > ‘The Earliest Englishman’ … Proudly he proclaimed a new
            > species, Eoanthropus dawsonii, ‘Dawson’s Dawn Man,’
            > which was named and authenticated by experts at the
            > British Museum.”
            > “.. most rushed to embrace Piltdown as a genuine
            > intermediate between humans and apes. Artists made
            > imaginative reconstructions of his face, and statues of his
            > presumed physique graced museums. In the U.S. there was
            > even a popular comic strip in the Sunday papers called
            > Peter Piltdown … Most prestigious British anthropologists
            > put their names and reputations on the line in authenticating
            > Piltdown.”
            > “Forty years later, the famous bones again made world
            > headlines: Piltdown Ape-Man A Fake â€" Fossil Hoax
            > Makes Monkeys Out Of Scientists. Back in 1911, someone
            > had taken a human cranium and planted it at the gravel
            > excavation together with a doctored orang-utan jaw. The
            > orang teeth had been filed to make them look more human ..
            > All the fragments had been stained brown with potassium
            > bichromate, which made them appear equally old …
            > conclusive proof of fraud came in the 1950’s.”
            > “Looking back, it appears that British scientists, fed up with
            > news of sensational fossil men found in Germany and France,
            > strongly craved an ancestor of comparable age … The
            > Piltdown hoax remains one of the most intriguing mysteries
            > in the history of science.” ( - The Encyclopedia of Evolution,
            > 1990, pages 363-4; by Richard Milner, M.A. in Biological
            > Anthropology, UCLA; Senior Editor of Natural History
            > magazine, American Museum of Natural History; foreword
            > by Stephen Jay Gould)
            >
            > Looking forward to comparing your next perceptions.
            >
            >
            > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@>
            > > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
            > > Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 5:39 PM
            > > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
            > >
            > >
            > > >
            > > > Richard, you wrote, "You have your opinion, I have mine." - Does that
            > > > also apply to your "elephant perception" story? In a previous post you
            > > > gave the elephant story to show that not all perceptions are true. Or,
            > > > was
            > > > that story just your opinion, and not related to truth?
            > >
            > > R: Evidence shows some of our perceptions are illusory. But we have means
            > > for detecting that, like replication and consensus of other people. In
            > > your
            > > view there is neither any evidence, nor replication, nor consensus. To say
            > > not all perceptions are true is not to say none are. Get it?
            > >
            > > >
            > > > Before, it was 'truth is truth regardless of perception' - so be careful
            > > > in finding truth. Now, it's just your opinion. What happened to the
            > > > truth?
            > > > To perceive that another perceives incorrectly, requires that you
            > > > perceive
            > > > correctly.
            > >
            > > R: Truth is attained through evidence and reason, such as found in the
            > > methodology of science. The goal is objectivity, thus the necessity of
            > > requiring evidence and testing. This is not a matter of subjective
            > > individual opinion, but rather the consensus of competent intelligent
            > > people. Verification of perception is attained through, again, replication
            > > and consensus. Your example of comparing the perception of one person by
            > > that of one other person is not relevant. Think of comparing one's
            > > perception with a multitude of perceptions of other people, and then
            > > repeating that under differing situations. The key is CONCENSUS. That's
            > > the only way out of individual subjectivity.
            > >
            > > >
            > > > Perhaps you are grabbing part of the elephant, too, Richard. As Prof.
            > > > Breggen has noted, the "skeptical position assumes that the skeptic can
            > > > stand outside the meat-grinder/sausage-making machine and see the meat,
            > > > the grinder, the table, [or elephant] and so on." (Hendrick van der
            > > > Breggen, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Providence College and
            > > > Seminary; cited in Christian Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5)
            > >
            > > R: "Providence" is by its nature and definition biased, basing theories on
            > > presuppositions rather than evidence and reason. Thus your professor holds
            > > on this, that doctrine of what is presumed to be true at the beginning.
            > > Again the way out is evidence, testing, replication, and consensus.
            > >
            > > >
            > > > If you can see the whole elephant, then you can distinguish the true and
            > > > false. But, if it's just your opinion, then you are touching the
            > > > elephant
            > > > along with the others.
            > >
            > > R: And do you see the whole elephant? What is the whole, and how do you
            > > know you see the whole? You choose unsupported presuppositions rather than
            > > evidence and reason, thus you cannot get out of your own individual
            > > subjectivity, as also all those in your cloistered group, and you fail in
            > > finding truth. Again, truth is not found through one's opinion, but rather
            > > the methodology well established by science. I suggest you venture out in
            > > your studies and learn something outside your "providence" group.
            > >
            > > Richard.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
          • Richard Godwin
            Of course faith is in science: faith in natural order, in the law of causality and others. But that faith is backed up with pragmatic value in what is
            Message 5 of 25 , Oct 6, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Of course faith is in science: faith in natural order, in the law of
              causality and others. But that faith is backed up with pragmatic value in
              what is produced. Religious faith also, sometimes, is backed up with
              pragmatic value, such as helping the needy. But there is nothing at all for
              "salvation" in a life after death, which simply is a self-interest quid pro
              quo: If you believe and work with it, you will be saved; if not you go to
              hell.

              In science and ALL intellectual enterprises, there is faith in consensus.
              Unfortunately, as humans are limited, it doesn't always work (punctuated by
              the Black Swan incident), but there is nothing else for any objectivity. The
              only alternative to consensus is nihilism and solipsism. We work
              pragmatically through consensus in theories with varying degrees of
              probability, and it has worked well enough for us to experience both
              survival and enhancement. That's enough. In science it is faith that
              produces pragmatic results. In religion, it is blind faith with no
              pragmatic results, other than psychological and social influences that have
              value for humanity, but destructive in those that are negative for humanity.
              You mind simply is clouded by your bias, and you show no critical thinking
              at all. The belief in an imported Creator has no evidence whatsoever. If
              you think it does, then please specify it clearly.

              Richard.


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...>
              To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:19 PM
              Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Piltdown man (was: One last comment to
              Richard)


              >
              > "science is self-correcting so these things come out over time provided
              > you wait long enough." - Right now you could be believing multiple lies,
              > we just don't know, science hasn't had enough time.
              >
              > "I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though it
              > may be over anything else..." - This is intriguing. Faith is apparently
              > necessary with science. If you believe the scientific consensus, you have
              > a lot more faith than I do. I'm much more into critical thinking and
              > distrust of the mainstream, in search of suppressed evidence.
              > Evolutionists are still running one of the biggest shamwows on the
              > planet - who would have thought the Origin of Species was written by a
              > creationist? This was noted by Darwin way back in his autobiography, but
              > you won't hear evolutionists mention that in schoolbooks. How much longer
              > will it take to self-correct?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >>
              >> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "spacehut1" wrote:
              >> > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 wrote:
              >> > > Just because Piltdown man was hoaxed doesn't mean that the rest
              >> > > of the evidence for evolution was hoaxed.
              >> >
              >> > - You seem to be missing the point. I was responding to Richard's
              >> > repeated emphasis of relying on consensus to get the truth. The
              >> > consensus was that Piltdown Man was an established fact that proved
              >> > evolution; so much consensus that it even poisoned children's minds
              >> > in evolutionist schoolbooks.
              >>
              >> Consensus certainly isn't perfect, but often it is the best we've got
              >> (and science is self-correcting so these things come out over time
              >> provided you wait long enough).
              >>
              >> Science does have a history of getting to the bottom of things that is
              >> unmatched by anything (you could argue that technology matches it, but
              >> technology is really just applied science), religion, politics, etc have
              >> not done anywhere near as well at describing the world we live in.
              >>
              >> I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though it
              >> may be over anything else simply because everything else is worse.
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
            • Richard Godwin
              ... From: spacehut1 To: Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:35 PM Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: One
              Message 6 of 25 , Oct 7, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...>
                To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:35 PM
                Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: One last comment to Richard



                "So you have something against University professors??? Biased are you?" -
                No. I am under the impression professors are capable of twisting student
                minds, and your writings fit right in. Prejudging are you? Your perception
                is wrong again.

                R: Evidently from your own failed experience in school. However this is
                true in many cases, at least for those students whose minds are easily
                twisted, much like indoctrination in religious beliefs. So you think my
                writings aim at twisting your mind? Who else?

                ".. we both would say it's a tree, but we would see it differently .." -
                But that's just your perception. Perhaps the consensus does not even see a
                tree.

                R: No. Your view then is solipsism. Do you know what that is?

                "Whether or not your perception is correct would depend on the perceptions
                of others .." - This seems to contradict your previous statements in
                message 11980: ".comparing the perception of one person by that of one
                other person is not relevant. Think of comparing one's perception with a
                multitude of perceptions of other people, and then repeating that under
                differing situations."

                R: Taking my statement out of context? Just your style. A perception is
                deemed accurate in terms of probability if it is confirmed by others with
                their perception, AND is replicable and then repeated.

                "Or would see a ghost, like the "appearances" of the resurrected
                Christ?--grossly expanded in witnesses." - Are you comparing your
                perception to others? Not supposed to do that, again 11980: ".comparing the
                perception of one person by that of one other person is not relevant. Think
                of comparing one's perception with a multitude of perceptions of other
                people, and then repeating that under differing situations." At least you
                agree they were witnesses.

                R: So you are the one trying to twist statements! You evidently are
                prejudiced against professors, since you want to be the one to do the
                twisting. Based on your quote of what I said: "Think of comparing one's
                perception with a multitude of perceptions of other people, and then
                repeating that under differing situations." This is accurate. For example,
                the ghost appearances of Christ must be replicable, and then replicated.
                NO, I don't agree there were witnesses. Actually, I think it was all made
                up for the polemics of organization the new religion. But it could have a
                basis, since delusion was very common in those days, in our times somewhat
                less common.

                "Of course there can be comparisons of perceptions. I saw the car on the
                right causing the collision; you saw it was the car on the left. Who's
                right?" - Again, you are violating 11980. It is irrelevant (as you wrote)
                to compare "the perception of one person by that of one other person." The
                police should not even ask these two people questions to help figure out
                what happened. So also the judge, in fact the court should stop hearing such
                cases altogether.

                R: No, you take my statement (if I made it) out of its context. Of course
                perceptions of persons must and are compared with each other, which is what
                law officers and courts do. Since you are having so much fun with this, and
                since you believe the Bible literally, then you should follow your Bible and
                go hang yourself, the advice of the Bible for Judas. Do likewise.

                "What do you think consensus means?" - Majority, or general view.

                R: No. It means confirmation through a sufficient number of observers to
                render an observation or interpretation as true or untrue. Such as, the
                consensus of biblical scholars is that Jesus was not physically resurrected,
                and that the donkey didn't talk, or that the earth traverses the sun, even
                though we can't observe it.

                "I referred to it only because you did first. So we agree to lay that guy
                aside now?" - I apologize for the confusion. The post with the elephant
                story ran together and appeared to be from you. I hereby abandon my line of
                thought with the elephant story.

                "Yes, I do have opinions . Never follow my opinions. Strive for truth
                yourself ." - So, you have opinion, instead of truth? Is it true one
                should strive for truth, or is that just your opinion? Is it true you have
                opinions? Is it true one should never follow your opinions? If your opinions
                aren't worth following, then why even have them?

                R: No. I have opinions of truth, based on what I think as probable. There
                is no certainty in truth. Truth is based on probabilities and is subject to
                revision. For example it was true that all swans are white, even included
                in the definition of swans. That truth has been abandoned for a new truth
                that most are white but some are black.

                "Strive for truth yourself . I follow Socrates, in that we never have the
                truth." - Is that true? Is it true that we never have truth, or is that
                just your opinion (which we should never follow, as you wrote)? In 11980 you
                wrote, "Truth is attained through evidence and reason." How can truth be
                attained if we never have the truth? And you claim the Bible has
                contradictions, there's plenty in your posts. Also in 11980, "Again, truth
                is not found through one's opinion, but rather the methodology well
                established by science." Truth can be found? Is that true?

                R: Of course you are all mixed up, expecting truth to be certain. Truth is
                attained through investigation leading to theories which have probability,
                and just as in science, we all should strive for truth. It is true that
                truth is not based on opinion. It is true that truth is true by
                probabilities which determine truth.

                ""So it's kind of a frogamander, if you will," said Anderson." - Who is
                Anderson?

                "Detectives use more intuition. Science uses hypothetical deduction with
                testing for conformation." - I include antiquity and historic evidence
                (don't forget cold cases and forensics). This is where I started the string
                for Darwin's Creator. Your paragraphs for fossils are so scientific and
                detailed - did you just copy and paste that info. from other sites? And, are
                these paragraphs true, or just your perception?

                R: And again, another transition from primates to human has been discovered
                and interpreted: Ardipithicus ramidus. Good ole Ardi is 4.4 m.y. old,
                pre-dating Lucy of another species (or genus) who is 3.2 m.y. old.
                Evolution theory is so well proven that it is as factual as the earth
                traverses the sun, if not more so. Confirmation for truth of evolution is
                assured. Yes, evolution is true.

                My reply to the bible "contradictions" posts is forthcoming. Thanks!

                R: Good. Then we will expect you to play around with that too.

                Richard.





                --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "bob bobby" <spacehut1@...>
                > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:54 PM
                > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: One last comment to Richard
                >
                >
                >
                > Thanks for the reply, Richard!
                > You wrote, â?ocomparing the perception of one person
                > by that of one other person is not relevant.� But, that is
                > exactly what you did and are doing right now. You placed
                > your perception up to those touching the elephant, and your
                > perception is that all 3 touchers were incorrect, by
                > comparing their perceptions between them. Please let me
                > know where you obtained this line of thought â?" from a
                > University professor? (this is a serious question)
                >
                > R: Again CONSENSUS. In controversial cases, consensus is necessary. My
                > scenario was meant to show there are differences in perceptions.
                > Actually,
                > as scientists have show, there never is more than one exact perception,
                > even
                > within only one individual. Of course, small differences are not noticed.
                > If you see a particular tree, and I also see that tree, we both would say
                > it's a tree, but we would see it differently. So you have something
                > against
                > University professors??? Biased are you?
                >
                > Further, you presently perceive that my perception is
                > incorrect â?" a conclusion reached by comparing our two
                > perceptions.
                >
                > R: Whether or not your perception is correct would depend on the
                > perceptions of others, usually. The real test would come from a number of
                > others and over different periods of time. Could it be that in mass
                > psychology a whole group of people would have seen a tree there, but after
                > a
                > while (hours, days?) it disappeared. Or would see a ghost, like the
                > "appearances" of the resurrected Christ?--grossly expanded in witnesses.
                > Were they all so biased as to be particularly subject to delusion? Very
                > possibly yes.
                >
                > You mention that not all perceptions are untrue (which I
                > agree). Thus, one can compare perceptions and see which
                > is true and false, as you did with the elephant, right?
                >
                > R: Of course there can be comparisons of perceptions. I saw the car on
                > the
                > right causing the collision; you saw it was the car on the left. Who's
                > right? Whose on first base? The elephant is more than its parts.
                >
                > Please provide more information about Consensus, as you
                > write of. I would like to compare your perception with
                > others to see if anyone got it right â?" kind of like your
                > elephant story. The elephant method is a good way to
                > compare, right?
                >
                > R: I don't like the elephant concept particularly, but go for it if you
                > wish. First let me ask you: What do you think consensus means?
                >
                > Please be more specific on the Providence paragraph. I do
                > not recall mentioning anything about Providence in my
                > paragraph, which you were attempting to answer.
                >
                > R: The school named "Providence." That would be a cue to what kind of
                > school that would be. Of course it might refer to Providence, RI, in
                > which
                > case I would be wrong.
                >
                > The questions about the elephant are questions you should
                > be asking yourself. I did not introduce the elephant, nor do
                > I rely on it, as you did; it is nonsense to answer to something
                > I do not rely on. What are your answers? Did you presuppose
                > it was an elephant, or did you see the elephant?
                >
                > R: Good. Forget the elephant. I referred to it only because you did
                > first.
                > So we agree to lay that guy aside now? I haven't seen an elephant for a
                > long
                > time.
                >
                > You wrote, â?otruth is not found through one's opinionâ? - I
                > agree with your perception on that. However, you previously
                > spoke of having your own opinion. So, if one is going to
                > find the truth itâ?Ts not going to be with listening to your
                > opinion (again, you admit to having opinion). Right? Also,
                > why would you even have opinion, if you have the truth?
                >
                > R: Yes, I do have opinions. These are some theories (1) for which I lack
                > sufficient evidence and reasoning for confirmation at the time, or (2) for
                > personal beliefs based on evidence and reason. Never follow my opinions.
                > Strive for truth yourself, without being determined by anyone else. I
                > follow Socrates, in that we never have the truth. We have only good
                > theories, based on probabilities, sometimes later proven wrong. Are you
                > familiar with the Black Swan scenario?
                >
                > You spoke of my perception as lacking â?oany evidence.â?
                > Your perception is not true, again. Personally, I prefer
                > investigating evidence (like police detectives).
                > Unfortunately, this string is more philosophic.
                >
                > R: Good idea. Go for evidence. Like science. Detectives use more
                > intuition. Science uses hypothetical deduction with testing for
                > conformation. I am quite familiar with your quoting on the Piltdown
                > "missing link." You do have the correct conception that science sometimes
                > fails in its task, even sometimes with fraudalent claims. So science
                > isn't
                > perfect. Were you expecting perfection from science? I surely am not.
                > But
                > here is a good example of a problem. You, as the Creationist groups, take
                > one, two, three, or so examples of failures in science to represent many
                > thousands and hundreds of thousands of examples that have proven correct.
                > That's bad reasoning, and from which you can learn something, if you are
                > so
                > inclined.
                >
                > There are missing links between different genera: Speciation, or fossil
                > transitions, are quite common, for example fish to mammal with
                > Archaeopteryx, commonly called Fishapod, and also in the reverse from
                > mammal
                > to fish. Another dinasaurs to birds (although controversial): dinosaur
                > Beipiaosaurus sported two feather types, one a stiff, unbranched filament
                > that is the first evidence of a feather, and A fossil bonanza in
                > northwestern China shows that the ancestors of T. rex and other reptile
                > giants started small, 165-155 m.y. ago: a theropod, a type of two-legged,
                > meat-eating dinosaur from the lineage that led to birds. Gerobatrachus
                > hottoni, the animal looked somewhat like a salamander with a stubby tail
                > and
                > froglike ears. "So it's kind of a frogamander, if you will," said
                > Anderson.
                > An ancient ancestor of the elephant from 37 million years ago lived in
                > water
                > and had a similar lifestyle to a hippo, a fossil study has suggested. The
                > animal was said to be similar to a tapir, a hoofed mammal which looks like
                > a
                > cross between a horse and a rhino.
                >
                > For ape to human the latest is "Id", 47 m.y. old primate fossil. The
                > famous
                > "Lucy" is Australopithicus afarensis, not totally ape and yet not quite
                > human, dated 3.2 to 3.8 m.y. old, thus transitional. And humans from
                > fish:
                > Tiktaalik, the 375-million-year-old fossil believed to be a "missing link"
                > between fish and the first land vertebrates, or tetra­pods; this might
                > explain why there are some remarkable similarities in body plan. Check
                > this
                > out: http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0812/features/fish_out_of_water.shtml
                > Macroevolution now is quite common, along with microevolution. With the
                > completion of Chimp DNA, we now know we have 99% the same DNA as do
                > Chimps.
                >
                > So that's for starters.
                >
                > Richard.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Science is highly esteemed in your posting (I like science,
                > too). Yet, we still must be careful, because I can point to
                > examples where the Consensus of evolutionist â?oscienceâ?
                > falsely perceived a â?otruthâ? and thereby mislead the
                > perceptions of people all over the world. Note how well
                > established it was:
                > â?oOn December 18, 1912, newspapers throughout the world
                > blared sensational headlines: Missing Link Found â?"
                > Darwinâ?Ts Theory Proved. The source of all the excitement
                > was a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex in the southern English
                > countryside, where a local amateur archaeologist had found
                > â?~The Earliest Englishmanâ?T â?¦ Proudly he proclaimed a new
                > species, Eoanthropus dawsonii, â?~Dawsonâ?Ts Dawn Man,â?T
                > which was named and authenticated by experts at the
                > British Museum.�
                > â?o.. most rushed to embrace Piltdown as a genuine
                > intermediate between humans and apes. Artists made
                > imaginative reconstructions of his face, and statues of his
                > presumed physique graced museums. In the U.S. there was
                > even a popular comic strip in the Sunday papers called
                > Peter Piltdown â?¦ Most prestigious British anthropologists
                > put their names and reputations on the line in authenticating
                > Piltdown.�
                > â?oForty years later, the famous bones again made world
                > headlines: Piltdown Ape-Man A Fake â?" Fossil Hoax
                > Makes Monkeys Out Of Scientists. Back in 1911, someone
                > had taken a human cranium and planted it at the gravel
                > excavation together with a doctored orang-utan jaw. The
                > orang teeth had been filed to make them look more human ..
                > All the fragments had been stained brown with potassium
                > bichromate, which made them appear equally old â?¦
                > conclusive proof of fraud came in the 1950â?Ts.â?
                > â?oLooking back, it appears that British scientists, fed up with
                > news of sensational fossil men found in Germany and France,
                > strongly craved an ancestor of comparable age â?¦ The
                > Piltdown hoax remains one of the most intriguing mysteries
                > in the history of science.� ( - The Encyclopedia of Evolution,
                > 1990, pages 363-4; by Richard Milner, M.A. in Biological
                > Anthropology, UCLA; Senior Editor of Natural History
                > magazine, American Museum of Natural History; foreword
                > by Stephen Jay Gould)
                >
                > Looking forward to comparing your next perceptions.
                >
                >
                > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > ----- Original Message -----
                > > From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@>
                > > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                > > Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 5:39 PM
                > > Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] One last comment to Richard
                > >
                > >
                > > >
                > > > Richard, you wrote, "You have your opinion, I have mine." - Does that
                > > > also apply to your "elephant perception" story? In a previous post you
                > > > gave the elephant story to show that not all perceptions are true. Or,
                > > > was
                > > > that story just your opinion, and not related to truth?
                > >
                > > R: Evidence shows some of our perceptions are illusory. But we have
                > > means
                > > for detecting that, like replication and consensus of other people. In
                > > your
                > > view there is neither any evidence, nor replication, nor consensus. To
                > > say
                > > not all perceptions are true is not to say none are. Get it?
                > >
                > > >
                > > > Before, it was 'truth is truth regardless of perception' - so be
                > > > careful
                > > > in finding truth. Now, it's just your opinion. What happened to the
                > > > truth?
                > > > To perceive that another perceives incorrectly, requires that you
                > > > perceive
                > > > correctly.
                > >
                > > R: Truth is attained through evidence and reason, such as found in the
                > > methodology of science. The goal is objectivity, thus the necessity of
                > > requiring evidence and testing. This is not a matter of subjective
                > > individual opinion, but rather the consensus of competent intelligent
                > > people. Verification of perception is attained through, again,
                > > replication
                > > and consensus. Your example of comparing the perception of one person by
                > > that of one other person is not relevant. Think of comparing one's
                > > perception with a multitude of perceptions of other people, and then
                > > repeating that under differing situations. The key is CONCENSUS. That's
                > > the only way out of individual subjectivity.
                > >
                > > >
                > > > Perhaps you are grabbing part of the elephant, too, Richard. As Prof.
                > > > Breggen has noted, the "skeptical position assumes that the skeptic
                > > > can
                > > > stand outside the meat-grinder/sausage-making machine and see the
                > > > meat,
                > > > the grinder, the table, [or elephant] and so on." (Hendrick van der
                > > > Breggen, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Providence College and
                > > > Seminary; cited in Christian Research Journal, Vol. 31, No. 5)
                > >
                > > R: "Providence" is by its nature and definition biased, basing theories
                > > on
                > > presuppositions rather than evidence and reason. Thus your professor
                > > holds
                > > on this, that doctrine of what is presumed to be true at the beginning.
                > > Again the way out is evidence, testing, replication, and consensus.
                > >
                > > >
                > > > If you can see the whole elephant, then you can distinguish the true
                > > > and
                > > > false. But, if it's just your opinion, then you are touching the
                > > > elephant
                > > > along with the others.
                > >
                > > R: And do you see the whole elephant? What is the whole, and how do you
                > > know you see the whole? You choose unsupported presuppositions rather
                > > than
                > > evidence and reason, thus you cannot get out of your own individual
                > > subjectivity, as also all those in your cloistered group, and you fail
                > > in
                > > finding truth. Again, truth is not found through one's opinion, but
                > > rather
                > > the methodology well established by science. I suggest you venture out
                > > in
                > > your studies and learn something outside your "providence" group.
                > >
                > > Richard.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >




                ------------------------------------

                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • spacehut1
                Of course faith is in science … - Put that one in the schoolbooks – faith in science. In science it is faith that produces pragmatic results. In
                Message 7 of 25 , Oct 15, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  "Of course faith is in science …" - Put that one in the schoolbooks – faith in science.

                  "In science it is faith that produces pragmatic results. In religion, it is blind faith with no pragmatic results, other than psychological and social influences that have value for humanity, but destructive in those that are negative for humanity." - I suppose the negative, destructive effects of eugenics and science professors of Nazi Germany will have to be placed in the religion section, instead of scientific consensus.

                  "In science and ALL intellectual enterprises, there is faith in consensus." - Exactly (?). And don't question consensus, because there's no better alternative. Like the consensus faith of Piltdown Man. I wonder if the consensus shares your faith, especially scientists who possess religious faith. Of course, the spiritual cannot be placed under a microscope (it's ridiculous to imply a need to), that's why natural clues to the spiritual are sought.






                  --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Of course faith is in science: faith in natural order, in the law of
                  > causality and others. But that faith is backed up with pragmatic value in
                  > what is produced. Religious faith also, sometimes, is backed up with
                  > pragmatic value, such as helping the needy. But there is nothing at all for
                  > "salvation" in a life after death, which simply is a self-interest quid pro
                  > quo: If you believe and work with it, you will be saved; if not you go to
                  > hell.
                  >
                  > In science and ALL intellectual enterprises, there is faith in consensus.
                  > Unfortunately, as humans are limited, it doesn't always work (punctuated by
                  > the Black Swan incident), but there is nothing else for any objectivity. The
                  > only alternative to consensus is nihilism and solipsism. We work
                  > pragmatically through consensus in theories with varying degrees of
                  > probability, and it has worked well enough for us to experience both
                  > survival and enhancement. That's enough. In science it is faith that
                  > produces pragmatic results. In religion, it is blind faith with no
                  > pragmatic results, other than psychological and social influences that have
                  > value for humanity, but destructive in those that are negative for humanity.
                  > You mind simply is clouded by your bias, and you show no critical thinking
                  > at all. The belief in an imported Creator has no evidence whatsoever. If
                  > you think it does, then please specify it clearly.
                  >
                  > Richard.
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...>
                  > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:19 PM
                  > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Piltdown man (was: One last comment to
                  > Richard)
                  >
                  >
                  > >
                  > > "science is self-correcting so these things come out over time provided
                  > > you wait long enough." - Right now you could be believing multiple lies,
                  > > we just don't know, science hasn't had enough time.
                  > >
                  > > "I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though it
                  > > may be over anything else..." - This is intriguing. Faith is apparently
                  > > necessary with science. If you believe the scientific consensus, you have
                  > > a lot more faith than I do. I'm much more into critical thinking and
                  > > distrust of the mainstream, in search of suppressed evidence.
                  > > Evolutionists are still running one of the biggest shamwows on the
                  > > planet - who would have thought the Origin of Species was written by a
                  > > creationist? This was noted by Darwin way back in his autobiography, but
                  > > you won't hear evolutionists mention that in schoolbooks. How much longer
                  > > will it take to self-correct?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@> wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "spacehut1" wrote:
                  > >> > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 wrote:
                  > >> > > Just because Piltdown man was hoaxed doesn't mean that the rest
                  > >> > > of the evidence for evolution was hoaxed.
                  > >> >
                  > >> > - You seem to be missing the point. I was responding to Richard's
                  > >> > repeated emphasis of relying on consensus to get the truth. The
                  > >> > consensus was that Piltdown Man was an established fact that proved
                  > >> > evolution; so much consensus that it even poisoned children's minds
                  > >> > in evolutionist schoolbooks.
                  > >>
                  > >> Consensus certainly isn't perfect, but often it is the best we've got
                  > >> (and science is self-correcting so these things come out over time
                  > >> provided you wait long enough).
                  > >>
                  > >> Science does have a history of getting to the bottom of things that is
                  > >> unmatched by anything (you could argue that technology matches it, but
                  > >> technology is really just applied science), religion, politics, etc have
                  > >> not done anywhere near as well at describing the world we live in.
                  > >>
                  > >> I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though it
                  > >> may be over anything else simply because everything else is worse.
                  > >>
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Judy
                  Spacehut, you are entirely wrong about science. Science is facts, truths. A scientist may put faith in  an idea, but that idea must be proven before it
                  Message 8 of 25 , Oct 16, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Spacehut, you are entirely wrong about science. Science is facts, truths. A scientist may put faith in  an idea, but that idea must be proven before it becomes fact. The religious are blinded by their denials of truths. There is an extremely long testing period in scientific discovery before any idea is accepted as a truth, and that remains open to any new facts that may change the authenticity of facts. Even Einstein had his theory changed.

                    Again I say that the religious are simply prejudiced against science and refuse to accept the facts that science discovers. That is called the "Heads Buried In The Sand Theory" or the denial of truth.

                    Judy




                    ________________________________
                    From: spacehut1 <spacehut1@...>
                    To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thu, October 15, 2009 7:12:25 PM
                    Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Piltdown man (was: One last comment to Richard)

                     

                    "Of course faith is in science …" - Put that one in the schoolbooks – faith in science.

                    "In science it is faith that produces pragmatic results. In religion, it is blind faith with no pragmatic results, other than psychological and social influences that have value for humanity, but destructive in those that are negative for humanity." - I suppose the negative, destructive effects of eugenics and science professors of Nazi Germany will have to be placed in the religion section, instead of scientific consensus.

                    "In science and ALL intellectual enterprises, there is faith in consensus." - Exactly (?). And don't question consensus, because there's no better alternative. Like the consensus faith of Piltdown Man. I wonder if the consensus shares your faith, especially scientists who possess religious faith. Of course, the spiritual cannot be placed under a microscope (it's ridiculous to imply a need to), that's why natural clues to the spiritual are sought.

                    --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Of course faith is in science: faith in natural order, in the law of
                    > causality and others. But that faith is backed up with pragmatic value in
                    > what is produced. Religious faith also, sometimes, is backed up with
                    > pragmatic value, such as helping the needy. But there is nothing at all for
                    > "salvation" in a life after death, which simply is a self-interest quid pro
                    > quo: If you believe and work with it, you will be saved; if not you go to
                    > hell.
                    >
                    > In science and ALL intellectual enterprises, there is faith in consensus.
                    > Unfortunately, as humans are limited, it doesn't always work (punctuated by
                    > the Black Swan incident), but there is nothing else for any objectivity. The
                    > only alternative to consensus is nihilism and solipsism. We work
                    > pragmatically through consensus in theories with varying degrees of
                    > probability, and it has worked well enough for us to experience both
                    > survival and enhancement. That's enough. In science it is faith that
                    > produces pragmatic results. In religion, it is blind faith with no
                    > pragmatic results, other than psychological and social influences that have
                    > value for humanity, but destructive in those that are negative for humanity.
                    > You mind simply is clouded by your bias, and you show no critical thinking
                    > at all. The belief in an imported Creator has no evidence whatsoever. If
                    > you think it does, then please specify it clearly.
                    >
                    > Richard.
                    >
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@. ..>
                    > To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
                    > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:19 PM
                    > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Piltdown man (was: One last comment to
                    > Richard)
                    >
                    >
                    > >
                    > > "science is self-correcting so these things come out over time provided
                    > > you wait long enough." - Right now you could be believing multiple lies,
                    > > we just don't know, science hasn't had enough time.
                    > >
                    > > "I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though it
                    > > may be over anything else..." - This is intriguing. Faith is apparently
                    > > necessary with science. If you believe the scientific consensus, you have
                    > > a lot more faith than I do. I'm much more into critical thinking and
                    > > distrust of the mainstream, in search of suppressed evidence.
                    > > Evolutionists are still running one of the biggest shamwows on the
                    > > planet - who would have thought the Origin of Species was written by a
                    > > creationist? This was noted by Darwin way back in his autobiography, but
                    > > you won't hear evolutionists mention that in schoolbooks. How much longer
                    > > will it take to self-correct?
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@> wrote:
                    > >>
                    > >> --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, "spacehut1" wrote:
                    > >> > --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, bestonnet_00 wrote:
                    > >> > > Just because Piltdown man was hoaxed doesn't mean that the rest
                    > >> > > of the evidence for evolution was hoaxed.
                    > >> >
                    > >> > - You seem to be missing the point. I was responding to Richard's
                    > >> > repeated emphasis of relying on consensus to get the truth. The
                    > >> > consensus was that Piltdown Man was an established fact that proved
                    > >> > evolution; so much consensus that it even poisoned children's minds
                    > >> > in evolutionist schoolbooks.
                    > >>
                    > >> Consensus certainly isn't perfect, but often it is the best we've got
                    > >> (and science is self-correcting so these things come out over time
                    > >> provided you wait long enough).
                    > >>
                    > >> Science does have a history of getting to the bottom of things that is
                    > >> unmatched by anything (you could argue that technology matches it, but
                    > >> technology is really just applied science), religion, politics, etc have
                    > >> not done anywhere near as well at describing the world we live in.
                    > >>
                    > >> I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though it
                    > >> may be over anything else simply because everything else is worse.
                    > >>
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                    > >
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >







                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Richard Godwin
                    Equivocation, another of your logical fallacies. Scientific faith in a theory is based on evidence, testing, and reasoning. Religious faith is based only on
                    Message 9 of 25 , Oct 16, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Equivocation, another of your logical fallacies. Scientific faith in a
                      theory is based on evidence, testing, and reasoning. Religious faith is
                      based only on what imagines or wishes to believe, called "faith-belief."
                      Got it?

                      Composition, another of your logical fallacies. Just because bad things
                      have happened from science does not discount all the good science has
                      provided humanity.

                      Also composition fallacy. Just because consensus sometimes is wrong (such
                      as all swans are white), does not render consensus always wrong or wrong in
                      the majority of cases. I've already shown you how wrong you are in this.
                      Just because Piltdown has been shown to be wrong, does not render the other
                      hundreds of thousands of evolutionary evidence wrong. Why can't you get
                      that through your thick skull?

                      So, give us a definition of "spirit".

                      Richard.


                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...>
                      To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:12 PM
                      Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Piltdown man (was: One last comment to
                      Richard)



                      "Of course faith is in science ." - Put that one in the schoolbooks -
                      faith in science.

                      "In science it is faith that produces pragmatic results. In religion, it is
                      blind faith with no pragmatic results, other than psychological and social
                      influences that have value for humanity, but destructive in those that are
                      negative for humanity." - I suppose the negative, destructive effects of
                      eugenics and science professors of Nazi Germany will have to be placed in
                      the religion section, instead of scientific consensus.

                      "In science and ALL intellectual enterprises, there is faith in
                      nsensus." - Exactly (?). And don't question consensus, because there's no
                      better alternative. Like the consensus faith of Piltdown Man. I wonder if
                      the consensus shares your faith, especially scientists who possess religious
                      faith. Of course, the spiritual cannot be placed under a microscope (it's
                      ridiculous to imply a need to), that's why natural clues to the spiritual
                      are sought.






                      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Of course faith is in science: faith in natural order, in the law of
                      > causality and others. But that faith is backed up with pragmatic value in
                      > what is produced. Religious faith also, sometimes, is backed up with
                      > pragmatic value, such as helping the needy. But there is nothing at all
                      > for
                      > "salvation" in a life after death, which simply is a self-interest quid
                      > pro
                      > quo: If you believe and work with it, you will be saved; if not you go to
                      > hell.
                      >
                      > In science and ALL intellectual enterprises, there is faith in consensus.
                      > Unfortunately, as humans are limited, it doesn't always work (punctuated
                      > by
                      > the Black Swan incident), but there is nothing else for any objectivity.
                      > The
                      > only alternative to consensus is nihilism and solipsism. We work
                      > pragmatically through consensus in theories with varying degrees of
                      > probability, and it has worked well enough for us to experience both
                      > survival and enhancement. That's enough. In science it is faith that
                      > produces pragmatic results. In religion, it is blind faith with no
                      > pragmatic results, other than psychological and social influences that
                      > have
                      > value for humanity, but destructive in those that are negative for
                      > humanity.
                      > You mind simply is clouded by your bias, and you show no critical thinking
                      > at all. The belief in an imported Creator has no evidence whatsoever. If
                      > you think it does, then please specify it clearly.
                      >
                      > Richard.
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@...>
                      > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:19 PM
                      > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Piltdown man (was: One last comment to
                      > Richard)
                      >
                      >
                      > >
                      > > "science is self-correcting so these things come out over time provided
                      > > you wait long enough." - Right now you could be believing multiple
                      > > lies,
                      > > we just don't know, science hasn't had enough time.
                      > >
                      > > "I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though
                      > > it
                      > > may be over anything else..." - This is intriguing. Faith is
                      > > apparently
                      > > necessary with science. If you believe the scientific consensus, you
                      > > have
                      > > a lot more faith than I do. I'm much more into critical thinking and
                      > > distrust of the mainstream, in search of suppressed evidence.
                      > > Evolutionists are still running one of the biggest shamwows on the
                      > > planet - who would have thought the Origin of Species was written by a
                      > > creationist? This was noted by Darwin way back in his autobiography, but
                      > > you won't hear evolutionists mention that in schoolbooks. How much
                      > > longer
                      > > will it take to self-correct?
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@> wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >> --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "spacehut1" wrote:
                      > >> > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 wrote:
                      > >> > > Just because Piltdown man was hoaxed doesn't mean that the rest
                      > >> > > of the evidence for evolution was hoaxed.
                      > >> >
                      > >> > - You seem to be missing the point. I was responding to Richard's
                      > >> > repeated emphasis of relying on consensus to get the truth. The
                      > >> > consensus was that Piltdown Man was an established fact that proved
                      > >> > evolution; so much consensus that it even poisoned children's minds
                      > >> > in evolutionist schoolbooks.
                      > >>
                      > >> Consensus certainly isn't perfect, but often it is the best we've got
                      > >> (and science is self-correcting so these things come out over time
                      > >> provided you wait long enough).
                      > >>
                      > >> Science does have a history of getting to the bottom of things that is
                      > >> unmatched by anything (you could argue that technology matches it, but
                      > >> technology is really just applied science), religion, politics, etc
                      > >> have
                      > >> not done anywhere near as well at describing the world we live in.
                      > >>
                      > >> I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though
                      > >> it
                      > >> may be over anything else simply because everything else is worse.
                      > >>
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ------------------------------------
                      > >
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >




                      ------------------------------------

                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • Richard Godwin
                      Faith is simply trust in what has been shown to work for what is real, through previous experience by evidence, whether or not it is fact. Even fact requires
                      Message 10 of 25 , Oct 16, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Faith is simply trust in what has been shown to work for what is real,
                        through previous experience by evidence, whether or not it is fact. Even
                        fact requires faith in it, tentative and contingent upon further evidence,
                        etc. There is no certainty, but only probability. We have faith in all our
                        life in what we believe is probable, shown by evidence and reason. When I
                        get into my car I have faith it will start and get me to where I want to go,
                        and that is scientifically justified faith. Once it stopped on the highway
                        and I couldn't get it started again, and I didn't get where I wanted to go.
                        So faith fails, and often. But still we have that faith in all we do,
                        realizing it often fails. We have to cuz it's the way our brain is made.
                        Blind faith is simply trust in what has NOT been shown to work for what is
                        real, but only for our self-satisfaction and wishes. But of course, if
                        religious faith should be the cause of someone not committing suicide, then
                        that religious faith has worked well and psychologically is justified, but
                        not for reality. When religious faith causes one to contribute to the
                        betterment of reality, then that faith is justified by its practical
                        beneficial results.

                        It boils down to belief in history and what is real. Faith in that can be
                        attained only through science, either explicit or implicit.

                        Richard.


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Judy" <cobbie1919@...>
                        To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 6:17 AM
                        Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Piltdown man (was: One last comment to
                        Richard)


                        Spacehut, you are entirely wrong about science. Science is facts, truths. A
                        scientist may put faith in an idea, but that idea must be proven before it
                        becomes fact. The religious are blinded by their denials of truths. There is
                        an extremely long testing period in scientific discovery before any idea is
                        accepted as a truth, and that remains open to any new facts that may change
                        the authenticity of facts. Even Einstein had his theory changed.

                        Again I say that the religious are simply prejudiced against science and
                        refuse to accept the facts that science discovers. That is called the "Heads
                        Buried In The Sand Theory" or the denial of truth.

                        Judy




                        ________________________________
                        From: spacehut1 <spacehut1@...>
                        To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Thu, October 15, 2009 7:12:25 PM
                        Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Piltdown man (was: One last comment to
                        Richard)



                        "Of course faith is in science …" - Put that one in the schoolbooks – faith
                        in science.

                        "In science it is faith that produces pragmatic results. In religion, it is
                        blind faith with no pragmatic results, other than psychological and social
                        influences that have value for humanity, but destructive in those that are
                        negative for humanity." - I suppose the negative, destructive effects of
                        eugenics and science professors of Nazi Germany will have to be placed in
                        the religion section, instead of scientific consensus.

                        "In science and ALL intellectual enterprises, there is faith in
                        consensus." - Exactly (?). And don't question consensus, because there's no
                        better alternative. Like the consensus faith of Piltdown Man. I wonder if
                        the consensus shares your faith, especially scientists who possess religious
                        faith. Of course, the spiritual cannot be placed under a microscope (it's
                        ridiculous to imply a need to), that's why natural clues to the spiritual
                        are sought.

                        --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, "Richard Godwin" <meta@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Of course faith is in science: faith in natural order, in the law of
                        > causality and others. But that faith is backed up with pragmatic value in
                        > what is produced. Religious faith also, sometimes, is backed up with
                        > pragmatic value, such as helping the needy. But there is nothing at all
                        > for
                        > "salvation" in a life after death, which simply is a self-interest quid
                        > pro
                        > quo: If you believe and work with it, you will be saved; if not you go to
                        > hell.
                        >
                        > In science and ALL intellectual enterprises, there is faith in consensus.
                        > Unfortunately, as humans are limited, it doesn't always work (punctuated
                        > by
                        > the Black Swan incident), but there is nothing else for any objectivity.
                        > The
                        > only alternative to consensus is nihilism and solipsism. We work
                        > pragmatically through consensus in theories with varying degrees of
                        > probability, and it has worked well enough for us to experience both
                        > survival and enhancement. That's enough. In science it is faith that
                        > produces pragmatic results. In religion, it is blind faith with no
                        > pragmatic results, other than psychological and social influences that
                        > have
                        > value for humanity, but destructive in those that are negative for
                        > humanity.
                        > You mind simply is clouded by your bias, and you show no critical thinking
                        > at all. The belief in an imported Creator has no evidence whatsoever. If
                        > you think it does, then please specify it clearly.
                        >
                        > Richard.
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: "spacehut1" <spacehut1@. ..>
                        > To: <deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com>
                        > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:19 PM
                        > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Piltdown man (was: One last comment to
                        > Richard)
                        >
                        >
                        > >
                        > > "science is self-correcting so these things come out over time provided
                        > > you wait long enough." - Right now you could be believing multiple lies,
                        > > we just don't know, science hasn't had enough time.
                        > >
                        > > "I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though
                        > > it
                        > > may be over anything else..." - This is intriguing. Faith is apparently
                        > > necessary with science. If you believe the scientific consensus, you
                        > > have
                        > > a lot more faith than I do. I'm much more into critical thinking and
                        > > distrust of the mainstream, in search of suppressed evidence.
                        > > Evolutionists are still running one of the biggest shamwows on the
                        > > planet - who would have thought the Origin of Species was written by a
                        > > creationist? This was noted by Darwin way back in his autobiography, but
                        > > you won't hear evolutionists mention that in schoolbooks. How much
                        > > longer
                        > > will it take to self-correct?
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@>
                        > > wrote:
                        > >>
                        > >> --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, "spacehut1" wrote:
                        > >> > --- In deathtoreligion@ yahoogroups. com, bestonnet_00 wrote:
                        > >> > > Just because Piltdown man was hoaxed doesn't mean that the rest
                        > >> > > of the evidence for evolution was hoaxed.
                        > >> >
                        > >> > - You seem to be missing the point. I was responding to Richard's
                        > >> > repeated emphasis of relying on consensus to get the truth. The
                        > >> > consensus was that Piltdown Man was an established fact that proved
                        > >> > evolution; so much consensus that it even poisoned children's minds
                        > >> > in evolutionist schoolbooks.
                        > >>
                        > >> Consensus certainly isn't perfect, but often it is the best we've got
                        > >> (and science is self-correcting so these things come out over time
                        > >> provided you wait long enough).
                        > >>
                        > >> Science does have a history of getting to the bottom of things that is
                        > >> unmatched by anything (you could argue that technology matches it, but
                        > >> technology is really just applied science), religion, politics, etc
                        > >> have
                        > >> not done anywhere near as well at describing the world we live in.
                        > >>
                        > >> I'll take the consensus of the scientific community, imperfect though
                        > >> it
                        > >> may be over anything else simply because everything else is worse.
                        > >>
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
                        > >
                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >







                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                        ------------------------------------

                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.