The road to riches begins here...

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), August 03, 2000

Answers

Here is where some **real money** is:

http://cgi.zdnet.com/slink?/adeskb/ad1tlt0802/2610573:438784

Nanotechnology -- the science of manipulating individual atoms -- will drastically change, well, everything. Fast-forward with me as our "What's Next" series uncovers supercomputers the size of water droplets and tiny robots that cure every disease.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 03, 2000.

http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0724_Darwins_Final_Recant.html

Only God knows, but I hope it's true.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), August 03, 2000.

can robot,s make people=nice??

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), August 03, 2000.

Someone better explain the H-bomb to Kent Hovind. He claims that "Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen" has never been observed.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Reminds me of back in the early 1970s when I subscribed (for free -- I wasn't about to give them a cent!) to a newsletter from the Institute of Creation Science for a couple of years, out of curiosity about their arguments.

Just about the time I was getting fed up with their torturing of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, someone found fossil footprints along the banks of some Texas creek that included what appeared to be human-shaped footprints intermixed with definitely-dinosaur prints. Wow! Did they ever trumpet that! Over and over ... for a while.

Then I read elsewhere that over the course of several months the supposedly-human-shaped prints, which were not actually depressions in the rock layer, but only outlines distinguishable by differential coloring from the rest of the rock, had gradually changed into distinctly dinosaur-shaped footprint outlines as the rock surface had oxidized with exposure to the air and the colors had changed. Didn't see a peep about this in the ICS newsletter, so I got bored and let my subscription lapse.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

From: Freethought, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

This offer has already been made on this forum at Christian Science Evangelist Offers Quarter Mil. If you care to see my answer to Hovind, search on "Dancr" or plug this URL in again: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002zW6# dancr

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), August 03, 2000.

Dancr, your touchy, feely (as usual) "analysis" of the "Nature of Science" doesn't quite cut it against the forces of rear guard marching Devil0lutionists. Malcolm did it far better:

---

Dancr,

I must take issue with your comments on Scientic Knowledge.

From: Freethought, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

The phrase "scientific fact" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "scientific proof." Science, unlike mathematics, does not consist of a collection of airtight proofs. Nor is it a large body of "facts." Science is a method of learning about our universe and how things work. The concept of "proof" does not exist in science, because the essence of science is being always open to new evidence and new explanations, which may call into question tentatively accepted theories.

Obviously you have a totally different view of Science to that which I learnt. For a start, the very word "science" is derived from the latin Sciere - to know. Hence Science means knowledge. Your assertion that "scientific fact" is an oxymoron shows just how little you actually know about the logic of scientific discovery. Science does contain a large body of facts, but it is not exclusively facts. However all scientific theories must be based on known facts. Once a theory becomes provable, then it becomes a scientific law. There are many theories that have been changed, modified or even abandoned. But I would like you to find a single scientific law that has been changed once it had been proved. There may be some, but I'm not aware of any.

Religion, on the other hand, does pretend to know certain so- called "truths" with absolute certainty, through faith. Faith, basically, is a determination to remain convinced of some proposition, despite any and all evidence or reasoning that might ever be offered to the contrary. Science is distinguished from religion in that it does not rely upon faith, but rather upon evidence and reason.

I am glad that you admit that religion only pretends to know certain truths and calls this "faith", science on the other hand calls these pretences "theories", but unlike faith, they are based on provable facts. Once the theory itself is provable it becomes a law.

While it is not possible to conclusively "prove" a scientific theory, it is possible to disprove them. Just because a particular explanation is accepted upon faith by some or many people does not automatically make it scientifically disproved. However, if an explanation is merely a matter of faith, in that there is no evidence or reasoning to support it, then that idea has no place being taught in public schools.

What ever gives you the idea that it is not possible to conclusively prove a theory? I'm sure that since Ohm proved his theory of electrical resistance, and so gave us Ohms law, you have been very glad to make use of his proof. Or have you never used electricity?

How shall it be decided what evidence is most convincing, particularly when some people are admittedly determined to completely discount any evidence or reasoning which does not agree with their own pet explanations? I don't know. I'm asking. This is a heavy question, and is the subject of much political game playing in textbook selection committees all across the country.

You do ask a very interesting question here, and although I am not qualified to answer it, I would respond with 2 corollary questions. "Why must anyone decide which evidence is more convincing?" and "why shouldn't ALL evidence be presented, rather than just a selected portion?"

This is meta-science. Did I just coin this word? I'm not widely read enough in this area to know. What I mean is, that this question of how science should be guided or controlled is an interesting question of its own, and may even be a subject worthy of study by children as well as by students in state supported colleges and universities.

Into this environment, a decade or so ago, steps Dr Hovind,, a self-described "creation science evangelist" who offers a substantial reward to anyone who "proves" evolution. He states that evolution refers to the origin of time, space, matter, higher elements from hydrogen, stars & planets, life from inanimate matter, kinds (species), and not just gradual changes within species.

I gather from this section that Dr Hovind has first of all re- defined the theory of evolution, then offered a reward of $250,000 for anyone who can prove his definition of evolution. The definition of evolution given in "HS Biology" and supported Mendel is An evolutionary event is a change in a population, not a change in just one or a few individuals.

What Dr Hovind is asking for is a combined proof of the Big Bang theory, Einstien's unified field theory, Plank's quantum theory, as well as the theory of evolution. The other matters that he asks about have already been proven so would not be an issue.

The rest of your comments appear to be based on your premise that nothing scientific can ever be proven, and therefore untill some common ground can be found between the believers of science, and the believers of religion, then I don't believe any further progress can be made.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), April 21, 2000.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 03, 2000.

How shall it be decided what evidence is most convincing, particularly when some people are admittedly determined to completely discount any evidence or reasoning which does not agree with their own pet explanations? I don't know. I'm asking. This is a heavy question, and is the subject of much political game playing in textbook selection committees all across the country.

You do ask a very interesting question here, and although I am not qualified to answer it, I would respond with 2 corollary questions. "Why must anyone decide which evidence is more convincing?" and "why shouldn't ALL evidence be presented, rather than just a selected portion?"

-------------SNIP..............

Then what Malcolm left open, I will close. The way you DO NOT "decide" on such things is "VOTE" for in SCIENCE, ONE is a Majority if that ONE is in possession of the Truth as can be demonstrated by Scientific Methods NOT RHETORIC. The **..."ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, RULES, TERMS AND EVEN JARGON"** ARE EXACTLY THAT: "ACCEPTED". AND THE "ACCEPTED" IS BY ****PEER REVIEW*** NOT THE VOTING BOOTH. WHEN ONE LEARNS ENOUGH TO BECOME A "PEER" ONE HAS A SAY IN THE MATTER. THAT DOES NOT COME AS A "birth right" or by turning 18 or 21.

That is why this evolution/creation so-called debate is corrupt.

The politicians pervert it for their own use while in reality, SCIENCE doesn't care about what the techno or scientific ILLITERATI "decide". SCIENCE keeps chugging along, expanding the "body of knowledge" and that for the creationists (lower case) is a very big problem for it is that "knowledge" that DE-BUNKS their "sacred" cause. SCIENCE IS ***MOOT** on Religion. It can't be used in matters of "Faith and belief" except to totally de-bunk and expose frauds like Peter Popoff whose 'miracles' and "psychic powers" were the result of his wife's prompting from another room to Popoff's ear plug.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 03, 2000.

The "road to riches" ENDS HERE: LINK

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003bWu

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), August 03, 2000.

One small step for man, one GIANT leap for mankind.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), August 03, 2000.

To "ByGrace@ThruFaith": That doesn't sound like much of a recant to me. If you had read the story of Mr. Darwin's life you would have known he was a deeply religious man, having been destined for the ministry early in life. But he was a very sick man most of his life (sick as in physical illness rather than mentally as some creationists would immediately jump in with). Wouldn't you agree that the conflict in his own mind between what he and his whole family firmly believed on the one hand i.e. what was taught in the bible and what he was discovering through his remarkable powers of observation might have led to illness from the stress of trying to reconcile the two and finding it impossible?

-- Jes (wondering@how. come), August 03, 2000.

Jonathan, thanks for all the great links, and your interesting post. Being an evolutionist, I'm always in need of new canon fodder. The April Fool's spoof was priceless. Bet plenty of creationists would leap on it for proof in a heartbeat.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 03, 2000.

cpr, the scientific community "votes" all the time by what it allows in the mainstream, peer-reviewed journals.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

That is EXACTLY CORRECT: THE **PEERS** in SCIENCE. NOT "TOUCHY FEELY" ASSHOLES most especially the TWITS who bought into Y2k FUD.

-- CPR (buytexas@swbell.net), August 04, 2000.

END OF ANOTHER BUBBLE HEADED JERK:

LINK

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003bWu

-- CPR (buytexas@swbell.net), August 04, 2000.

hi Jes - I don't know; only God knows. But the suffering itself doesn't matter so much as what he (and we) do with it.

-- (bygrace@thru.faith), August 05, 2000.

-- (proof@of.man), August 05, 2000.