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

Re: scientific paradigms

Expand Messages
  • bnixon74
    ... I m not sure what it is you are exactly referring too. What flaws are there in the theory of evolution that aren t very well explained by leading
    Message 1 of 146 , Dec 1, 2005
      > I am not suggesting all theories should be treated as
      > equals, just that those currently adopted should be
      > explained along with the flaws in them, and that others
      > offering alternatives, be they be similar or dissimilar,
      > be tested and judged fairly.

      I'm not sure what it is you are exactly referring too. What flaws are
      there in the theory of evolution that aren't very well explained by
      leading evolutionists? (I refer you to a phenomenal book by Ernst
      Mayer titled "What Evolution Is")

      > If not for the clique-ness I spoke of, things would change
      > more dramatically, and more quickly if and when such
      > change was able to be tested and reasoned through.
      > Einstein's ideas were dramatic, and fairly easily proven
      > via math understood at the time, yet even they took
      > decades to truly catch on and be taught in schools.

      Certainly part of the problem was that even Einstein wasn't sure that
      he was correct. In the meantime - I am talking about dramatic changes
      of direction, in the sense that what we now believe totally discounts
      what we previously believed. No one is running around now thinking
      that Newtonian physics is "wrong". We just now understand that it is
      "right" only under certain conditions. Just like we understand that
      Einstein was "right", but only under certain conditions (his theories
      do not work at the quantum level).

      > Today the holes in Neo-Darwinism are utilized by
      > fundamentalists to disregard the whole theory (as you
      > alluded to in a way earlier), and provide support to their
      > much less scientific take on things.

      What feeds fundamentalism isn't the holes in Evolutionary Theory
      (whatever those are that you are talking about) - it's the
      fundamentalists complete ignorance of what Evolutionary Theory
      actually is. Most try to lump Big Bang cosmology in with the theory
      of abiogenesis in with evolution and then critique what we don't know
      about abiogenesis and the Big Bang.

      That fundamentalists are so willing to invent Strawmen to attack,
      without even understanding the theory that they are attacking - isn't
      a fault of science or how evolutionists explain evolution.

      There are a number of holes in the EVIDENCE to support evolution (i.e.
      incomplete fossil records showing complete sets of transitional forms
      for all species). That's not the same as a hole in the THEORY, nor is
      a reason to invent answers, as the fundamentalists tend to do.

      > I would include the high probability of alien life
      > visiting earth and affecting our technology (read The Day
      > After Roswell by Lt. Col Corso:

      First Hoagland, and now Lt. Philip Corso?!?

      Hoagland is NOT a well-respected scientist now, nor has he ever been
      that I am aware of. He is widely regarded as a pseudoscientist of the
      highest order. The only people that I would imagine might have such a
      false interpretation of him are the legions of Art Bell.

      And frankly, it would be a tragedy to suggest there is any
      intersection between Art Bell (and his guests) and science.

      I've read Philip Corso's book. He lost me when he claimed to have
      been responsible for the invention of the integrated circuit, Kevlar
      and finally - wait for it - Space Camp.

      Philip Corso is beyond the pale. I particularly enjoyed how he
      tricked Strom Thurmond into writing his forward - that's always a
      solid indicator of an author's honesty.

      > I am not suggesting they throw things away wholesale,
      > just staying open to everthing and investigating things
      > as they come along, relying on this and repeatable
      > evidence without predjudice.

      But there isn't any reason to stay open to EVERYTHING. I defer to the
      late, great Carl Sagan: You have to keep an open mind, but no so open
      that your brains fall out (paraphrased).

      > Richard C Hoagland is now and has for a long time been a
      > respected scientist, even today he lectures high level
      > NASA and government on his ideas and observations.

      Just to repeat: No, he isn't.

      > That massive and clearly defined pyramids occuring at
      > hyperdimensional angles are present on mars (along with a
      > clearly defined face) are not reported as worthy of
      > attention - and instead are run through filters that
      > distort them and otherwise misreported, while the best and
      > most appropriate filtering technology showing the clearly
      > defined features are ignored - also makes the point I am
      > getting at.

      I'm going to have to stop right here. This is absurd.

      The problem with the "clearly defined pyramids" was that the
      photography that Hoagland was using to establish his mathematical
      coincidences was grossly inaccurate. They didn't apply filters to the
      image for the purpose of distorting them to hide the face on Mars, or
      the tetrahedron that Hoagland thought he found. They simply took a
      picture of the place with a much better camera.

      Turned out, the tetrahedron that couldn't have formed naturally isn't
      a tetrahedron at all. The face, that couldn't have formed naturally
      isn't a face at all.

      Hoagland isn't taken seriously because rather than accept that what he
      wants to be there isn't actually there (instead alleging that the
      establishment is just covering it up) - and because of his claims to
      see landspeeders and helicopters in Egyptian hieroglyphics as evidence
      that they encountered aliens.

      He's a loon.
    • Howard Ward
      ... **Thanks for the explanation Luke. Regards - Howard
      Message 146 of 146 , Jan 10 11:25 AM
        >**Perhaps turning people off with an ALL or NOTHING option isn't the best approach? Perhaps a "One size fits all" approach isn't the wisest way to discuss such issues with other people who may be at different levels of understanding?
        >L: I think I may have written that poorly. I aimed to say something more in agreeance with you. When I said people are scared of me because they realize I'm asking them to give up everything, I should have followed with, so that is obviously not a good way of going about things. By combining this with something in another recent post (I forget which), I think we can come to a logical conclusion: something is better than nothing and hopefully once they entirely understand that one thing, they begin to find the rest of the message themselves. If you start convincing someone to question their lifestlye in one area, chances are many people will extend that questioning attitude to other aspects of their life.
        >Take care

        **Thanks for the explanation Luke.

        Regards - Howard
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.