From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Sep 8 17:59: 3 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BEF37B400 for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E69C43E7B for ; Sun, 8 Sep 2002 17:58:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lomifeh@earthlink.net) Received: from bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net (bgp586692bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.202.147]) by mtaout01.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.8 (built May 13 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H25005TTC27KL@mtaout01.icomcast.net> for chat@FreeBSD.ORG; Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:58:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 20:58:47 -0400 From: Lawrence Sica Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-reply-to: <20020907110109.T44831-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Terry Lambert , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Message-id: <4C19F70A-C38F-11D6-8C5E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.543) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Saturday, September 7, 2002, at 04:10 PM, Neal E. Westfall wrote: > > > On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > >> "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: >>>> The scientific method never verifies, it only falsifies, so asking >>>> that something be empirically verified, whether it be the old theory >>>> of evolution, the current theory of puctuated equilibria, or that >>>> gravity is related to the curvature of space, is asking for the >>>> impossible. Science can only demonstrate the invalidity of ideas, >>>> not their validity. >>> >>> Okay, then lets stop pretending that creation is "unscientific" while >>> evolution is "scientific". Neither one of them can be falsified, so >>> either *both* of them are scientific, or neither of them are. You >>> can't have your cake and eat it too. If you claim an explanation >>> must also be "naturalistic", I charge you with providing a >>> justification for such arbitrariness. >> >> I guess we can keep on calling the currently accepted scientific >> theory "evolution", even though that's not the correct name for it. >> >> With that in mind, the methods you use judge one theory vs. another >> are: >> >> 1) Are the theories predictive? > > Evolution is not, as it relies on chance. Chance, by definition, > is unpredictable. > If you take a step back far enough those random chances become very predicateable. Read up on chaos theory and how randomness works. > > --Larry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message