The Fiction of "Fact"

I submit fact has been presented, plentifully, though you've chosen to disregard or dismiss such. That is not our problem.


It is proven to any of logical mind, moderate education, and as may be possessed of any philosophic integrity and intellectual honesty to be proven by the evidence available tobe accurate within a sufficient degree of probability as to suffice more han adequately in that it is consistent with all observation, is predicate upon legitimate critical thought, and is not contraindicated by any evidence whatsoever.


Yes. That is from whence it came, by which it has been developed, and through which it continually is being confirmed, expanded, and further more precisely understood and refined. In a sense, the purpose of science is to prove assumptions to be wrong; absent indication, to say nothing of proof, of error, conclusions are held to be true. Nothing even indicates the theory of evolution is in error.


Here we begin to get to the crux of the matter, to cut to the quick. It is not a mater of belief, it is a matter of learning and understanding. Both belief and learning and understanding are matters of personal choice. Learning and understanding, however, require more effort. Some are uncomfortable with taking that effort.


Here, at least, you think correctly; science in no way addresses any such consideration.



Here you make an incorrect and unsupportable assetion; no evidence exists by which to support any facet of the logical fallacy you present as argument. In that valid argument may not proceed from logical fallacy, the notion there is, or even may be, an argument as that purported and apparently perceived by you to exist is itself an absurdity


You really have to get a handle on the distinction between fanciful conjecture and factuall-based conclusions. Pascal's Wager is a sucker bet.

This joker advances the favorite paranoia of the fundamentalist nut cases in the U.S. these days--that science is a secular humanist plot which seeks to "disprove" god. That's nonsense, "science," per se, does not care if there is a god--that's a supernatural concept (poofism), and science is only concerned with natural phenomena.

I agree Setanta, that Science does not disprove God but in fact shows us how God does things. The reason I say that, well it's quite obvious I think, is that I am a believer in a supreme being which in this case would be God. Evolution may and probably is the way God was able to create the different species that inhabit the world we live in today. But as far as humans coming from apes is concerned I just don't believe it. I'll admit I don't know much concercing the theory of evolution but I thought I would just post my thoughts anyhow.

I can assure you I have no affiliation with this astounding

I should report you for attack on my person!!!

The truth shall be revealed.

Appearances strongly indicate the contrary. Demonstrate there be not an affiliation and/or association as has been suggested, do not merely claim in the face of strongly indicative evidence the apparent consanguinity be illusory.


Demonstrate that in any way an attack on your person has occurred. I submit, by way of reminder, it would be useful, in fact requisite, first to disprove the allegation at issue prior to proceeding with any demonstration of ad hominem thereby directed toward you.

evidently my attempt at trying to be comical was not successful.

Prove to me, as a fact, that Mars exists. Prove to me, as a fact, that atoms exist. Prove to me, as a fact, that you exist.

And why "in this case" would this "supreme being" be God?

Back to the "9 Billion Names of God."

Mars can be proven to exist by getting in a shuttle and flying there. I can prove my existence, simply if you came over, and I put my finger in your ear...or any physical contact. where as evolution has to be proven by scientific fact that is wholly connected to reality. Which I simply do not see.

But only after we are dead if we are to believe astounding.

It seems you didn't bother to follow the link I gave to observed evolution of species.

"Give me facts so I can ignore them" seems to be your motto.

timber & Lw, it's suggestive that Astounding and Galaxy were both names of famous SF magazines, although Astounding was eventually renamed Analog.

My supreme being is God. I don't know who yours is. My belief is my belief. I don't much care whether it is agreeable with what others think. But seriously, that's not the point I wanted to make. Read my previous post.

astounding,

The evidence presented by Darwin is summarized in the November 2004 issue of National Geographic. Let us know if you have any problems with it:

A new fossil discovery has revealed the most primitive snake known, a crawling creature with two legs, and it provides new evidence that snakes evolved on land rather than in the sea.

Snakes are thought to have evolved from four-legged lizards, losing their legs over time. But scientists have long debated whether those ancestral lizards were land-based or marine creatures.

The new find reveals a snake that lived in the Patagonia region of Argentina some 90 million years ago, said Hussam Zaher of the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, who describes the find in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. Its size is unknown, but it wasn't more than 3 feet long, he said in a telephone interview.

It's the first time scientists have found a snake with a sacrum, a bony feature supporting the pelvis, he said. That feature was lost as snakes evolved from lizards, and since this is the only known snake that hasn't lost it, it must be the most primitive known, he said.

The creature clearly lived on land, both because its anatomy suggests it lived in burrows and because the deposits in which the fossils were found came from a terrestrial environment, he said.

So, if the earliest known snake lived on land, that suggests snakes evolved on land, he said.

Little new evidence had appeared in recent years in the land-versus-sea debate, he said, and "we needed something new. We needed a new start. And this snake is definitely a new start for this debate."

While the creature still had two small rear legs, it crawled like a modern-day snake, he said. It probably used its legs only on occasion, though it's not clear for what, he said.

The creature, named Najash rionegrina, is "a fantastic animal," said Jack Conrad, a researcher at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and co-curator of an upcoming exhibit on lizards and snakes.

"It's really going to help put to rest some of the controversy that's been going around snake evolution and origins," he said. Conrad said he never took sides in the land-versus-sea debate, but "but this is starting to convince me."

Olivier Rieppel, a fossil reptile expert at the Field Museum in Chicago, called the find important and said Najash is clearly the most primitive known snake.

If snakes did evolve on land rather than the sea, their fossil record might be less complete because early fossils would have been better preserved in a marine environment, he said.

That, in turn, suggests "we may not know all the lineages of early snake evolution," he said. Maybe several snake lineages lost the legs of their lizard ancestors independently, he said.

The creature's name comes from a Hebrew word for snake and the Rio Negro province of Argentina, where the discovery took place.

come on, 90 million years? that is a long time, and I doubt such fragile material like bone could survive for that long. and it says they gradually lost their legs through evolution of course. where are the bones of those that were in the process of losing their legs? This is a load of crap. Everything has to be proven to everyone here through millions of years or else its just not logical. that entire post harvester is a load, I sincerly hope you people don't believe this.

Well Mr. astounding, have you gone in a shuttle and flown there? Nope! Then by your logic you have not proven Mars exists. You've only claimed that you think you can prove it. That's not the same at all. Well Mr. astounding, if you came over, and put your finger in my ear, how does that prove you exist? Perhaps I have a Delusional Disorder and simply imagined it!Who is asking you to understand "scientific fact"? Not me! I am asking you to prove to me, as a fact, that Mars exists. Prove to me, as a fact, that atoms exist. Prove to me, as a fact, that you exist. You have so far failed.


Let's put it this way Mr. astounding, if you cannot prove any of the things you claim are facts, why should I believe in your abilities to be skeptical of evolution?

Just out of curiosity, could you sketch out your proof that God created man? With your keen eye for insufficient evidence, I'm sure it must be pretty good.