Is blind faith in science any better than blind faith in religion?

Animals in the wild often die sooner than animals on a dole system in a zoo.

 

Do you think a tiger would have a more effective bite if it had hundreds
of identical tiny teeth?

We understand that your religious ideology requires that you reject science, and that your ignorance allows you little to say but the most facile of nonsense and falsehoods.

But I must ask, have you no shame? Spreading false hoods and exposing such ignorance is shameful. Why hath thou no shame?

You, like any other creo, are like unto a little child who wanders into a math conference and thinks its funny those big scientists are
trying to do math with those letters and funny squiggles.

Such childishness is no credit to any"faith" you espouse.

 

It is vain and not quite rational to expect that reality must conform to the meanings in dictionaries, new or old. Reality is whatever it is. Words are just symbols. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is a famous Shakespere quotation that captures the relation between words and reality.

Dictionaries, as books about words, are two removes from reality. Words do not have to mean what dictionaries say they mean! Language is a human invention. Nothing in the universe came with labels attached, giving words for it. People invented each and all of the words. And this creativity with words continues, and dictionaries must struggle to keep up. Usage determines meaning, not dictionaries. Dictionaries just report usage.

Species change in whatever ways they change, whatever we think about the process, and whatever words we use for it. Our thoughts and our words do not control reality. Now I say 'favorable change' means, in the context of evolution, 'change that tends to make it more likely that, in a given set of circumstances, a set of genes will be preserved through reproduction.' And I say it implies nothing else, such as better, or inferior, or advanced, or degenerate. If you are to say I am wrong, you CANNOT prove it by saying someone else used the word 'favorable,' or the word 'evolution' differently. You can only show my meaning, as I explain it, does not match reality in some way, using evidence from observation of reality. That's science.

What you're doing is just arguing over the names of roses.

 

What do you want exactly?
There are lots of examples which prove that in 1815 this word

evolution simply means "rolling or unfolding."[/I]

And that the word

evolve simply means "to unfold, to disentangle, to open or disclose itself".
(From a common dictionary, like Allison Dictionary of the English Language.)

No other meanings for this word evolution.

In 1899

You won't like at all the meaning of the word evolution

Evolution:

1) Literary: The act of unrolling or unfolding
2) Technically: Development of this world and the solar system from a fine mist or nebula
3)Biology:
A- The same as Epigenesis.
B- Development hypothesis or theory traces both animal and vegetable kingdom to one very low form of life. Consisting on a minute cell and supposes this cell produced by or from inorganic matter by some ancient process which used to be called spontaneous generation.

And about the word

Evolve: A- Unfold, unroll
B- To throw, send out, to emit, to difuse

(The American Dictionary and Cyclopedia).

Any dictionary from 1950 and forward shows a similar definition of the word evolution as

1)- "unrolling, opening, growth, formation"

.

2)- Other meanings as in military is "changing position", and

3)- in Biology, this word evolution still meaning primary as development, like

-development of a species, organism or organ from its original or rudimentary state to its present or complete state.

And the word evolve always meaning to develop gradually.

As you can notice, the word evolution originally never ever had he meaning of "change without arrow" or "change with modification", and even in the 1950s the theory of evolution implied development, following the original meaning of the word evolution and accepting as well the word/verb to evolve with the meaning of species being more developed.

But, what is develop?

Develop:


de·vel·op

[ di vélləp ]


1.change and grow: to change and become larger, stronger, or more impressive, successful, or advanced, or cause somebody or something to change in this way
2.arise and increase: to arise and then increase or progress to a more complex state
3.adopt or acquire something: to acquire a feature, habit, or illness that then becomes more marked or extreme

See?

Can you now accept that the evolutionists were always using the word evolution as changes from inferior, worst and simpler status into superior, better, and more complex status?

The Neo-Darwinians knew that they were talking trash with their theory and they changed it completely. Still, evolutionists will never get it right.

What more evidence do you want now?

If you still denying facts (the definitions were taken from older dictionaries) then you really really are a blind faith dude. And worst, your denial will portrait you as a fanatic, because the evidence is not fraudulent, and you can manipulate the information online, but you can't change older dictionaries definitions because they are printed in books. Lol

 

Neither religion itself requires blind faith.

 

Nothing you posted indicates that early evolutionary scientists chose "evolution" because they thought life was moving from an inferior or worst form to one that is more superior. Even when Darwin wrote his book, they weren't referring to some life as worse or inferior with regard to its place in the world. Simple to complex, sure. But one of Darwin's central tenets is that the process of change (later deemed evolution) simply involves organisms adapting due to fitness relative to their environment. Evolutionary biologists, regardless of the time they lived, didn't describe something like an insect or a bacterium as being "worst" or "inferior." If the organism is surviving, then it is fit. If it isn't, then it is not. That's how your original sentence was so wrong.

By the way, it's customary to actually cite your source when providing evidence. "Some old dictionaries" is not helpful. I'm hesitant to even accept what you've posted, but I don't see the harm since it doesn't support your position anyway.

 

Look, when Katrina happened, the lowest class people went up to the rich zone and killed older dudes, and food and goods were stolen. What "fittest" are you talking about?

Survival requires only to be at the right place when events happen. No matter how suitable you are to a certain environment, the changes will determine which species survive with little changes, which species will survive with notorious changes, etc.

Survival is not on the species but in the change caused by the environment.

The whole "natural selection" is simply: trash.

- - - Updated - - -

Ha, reading your denial I am assured that I just met a typical blind faith dude.

 

Evolution is not based on the scientific method. It is neither observable nor testable. It is based on assumptions, and there are no transitional forms.

In my experience, most don't really care either way.. they just like to annoy Christians

 

Blind faith would have been accepting what you originally said without asking you to support it. You don't even seem to understand what "blind faith" means, I'm not surprised that you can't support you claims about how 19th century scientists arrived at "evolution" as the term for change in life over time.

 

Everything is in transition. Everything is a transitional form. And the process has been tested and observed:

Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists

Researchers evolve a multicellular yeast in lab in 2 months

 

They're still birds... Where is the change in kind required to observe/test the theory of evolution?

 

Man, your denial against reality is worst than Burzmail.

Let me see, now you prefer ignoring and rejecting your own language in order to keep the fallacy of the theory of evolution alive?!!!

The titlle in this topic is 100% correct, because indeed, there are lots of blind faith science dudes.

How in the world are you denying your own language so you can justifiy your blind faith beliefs in silly theories of science?

Your reply shows that your belief is beyond the boundaries of sanity. A Chatolic pious woman praying all day long with her rosary in her hands is an amateur in front of you...

Please, you must understand that without giving definitions in our language, you won't be even capable to understand yourself when you open your mouth and said something.

Come on, come back to cordure... will you?

Do you develop with favorable or with unfavorable changes in your job?

Development of any kind leans on favorable, right? Even the development of cancer is reached when a favorable environment is on its way, but if you attack cancer with radiation, such unfavorable environment won't allow it to develop.

Darwin indeed was in complete agreement with the idea of species developing from inferior, worst and simpler status to superior, better, and more complex status.

 

Has speciation vs extinction rates been brought up in the discussion?

 

I posted the year and the dictionary. If you can't get it from my message, then you have deep reading comprehension problems. By the way, the dictionary from the 50's was the Webster, printed in 1956.

You can't go against this solid evidence, that evolutionists always assumed their theory as changes from inferior, worst and simpler status to superior, better and more complex status. The dictionaries updated the information from the several branches of knowledge, and the definitions reflect what the theories implied.

Amanzingly, the "evolution" of earth and the solar system from a "nebula" (mentioned in one of the definitions) is a true belief from older times. The idea was that this universal nebula rotated and gases became particles and formed the stars and planets.

Today, there is a more sophisticated belief, that the universe inflates itself... what a bunch of clowns... this new belief might be changed in the next 20 to 50 years... of course, the new blind faith science believers will deny that in 2013 scientists believed in such an inflationary theory... like they do today when they hear what their theories of science believed some time ago and deny their existence...

Religious people believe in God and don't seem to deny its existence even when accepting science, and this is what make them stronger and wise.

 

Nice topic.

Just remember that if a bird used to have teeth and now is left with a sole beak, that degeneration rules over any speciation, because has lost characteristics plus the bird didn't control the change.

 

Way to move the goal posts. You said it couldn't be tested or observed. I gave you two very explicit examples of testing and observing. If you have no interest in examining the evidence, just say so.

 

I examined the evidence, but the theory requires transitional forms, of which there are none. Also, a change in kind has never been observed or tested which are requirements of the scientific method. That's why I said that the leap from adaptation to evolutionary change in kind is an assumption.

 

Define "kind" as you're using it here. Single-cellular organism to multicellular organism counts as a change in "kind" in my book.

 

You aren't providing "solid evidence." You've posted older definitions of words and claim they support your attempt to divine the intent of evolutionary scientists of the day.

 

1. Language is irrelevant. Reality is reality no matter what anyone says about it, or what word-symbols they use to say it. Galileo looked through his telescope, and reported "And yet it moves." The fact that I just used English, while he spoke in Italian, make no difference. Reality was that it still moved. It he had not said so, it would still be reality that it moves. If he hadn't seen the evidence, it would still move.

What is true about change of species is true no matter what words anyone has ever used to talk about it, or how they were defined in old dictionaries. You cannot change one particle of reality by arguing about words. No matter what words anyone uses, and no matter what they mean or meant, you cannot make the Earth stand still. It still moves. Language is irrelevant.

2. I don't "ignore and reject my own language." I just reject your belief that the definitions of things somehow invalidate scientific reasoning.

3. Even if you were 100% right about what scientists thought over 100 years ago, so what?

4. Your reliance on mockery and insult just reveals your intellectual impotence.

5. It is clear that you will create endless pseudo-rational arguments in support of your own belief structure, and you wouldn't believe me if I told you rain was damp.

 

No, you're right, but I didn't say it did.

 

The fallacy is that science provides explanations. Science describes rather than explains.

 

Well, to be more specific, it aims to explain the HOW, but not the WHY. At least, I think that's what you're getting at?

 

Well, no wonder you're so bloody befuddled, you're reading this crackpot's page. If you believe an avant garde artist who thinks pi=4, and who thinks he has overturned every mathematicians' work since Euclid, you're going to have a bad time.

Anyways, relevant selection from the above:

Okay. So, I'm pretty sure that your entire argument, and Miles', is that the Wikipedia article about Pound-Rebka used to not have the correct formula down for relativistic Doppler red-shifts. As you point out, there should be square roots there. The Wikipedia has since been updated with the correct formula. Here is the discussion on Wiki about the formula missing the square roots.

It has everything to do with atomic clocks. What do you think the purpose of using 57Fe was? It is a natural atomic clock.

Nope, the Wikipedia page just wasn't correct at the time Miles Mathis posted, apparently.. I can't tell if your reliance on a crackpot is sad or laughable.

Yes, he was right, the litany of experiments I have provided to you back that up.

I thought you said you read the damn paper?

Just because you keep claiming it doesn't make it so.

Yes, because you didn't do the exact same thing by posting a link to known crackpot Miles Mathis, who had authored books as well. Hypocrite.

Dear lord, so it's a Jewish conspiracy? You're a crackpot as well if you believe that bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

That's because Miles Mathis isn't a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing physicist or even a scientist. He is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty artist/ballet dancer who thinks pi=4.

Okay, so I ask you to provide evidence that Eddington committed Fraud. Your response? Rant about Jews and how it's all a Jewish conspiracy. You're a loon.

More hand-waving. Provide a source that backs up your claim that six stars are necessary. Your ability to claim so is not proof of your assertion.

...Because the speed of light is a constant of the Universe.

So, basically you're saying that the physical constants of the Universe are subject to the same decay that the physical substances of the Universe are subject to. You can't make a parallel between a constant and a substance. You're practically a crackpot, good day.