I haven't read the book and have no plans on doing so, for its title
betrays its fatal flaw -- prominent scientists in the past have
sometimes been wrong in their beliefs. Professor J.J. Thomson, a very
distinguished scientist and Nobel Laureate in physics, over a century
ago proposed a model of the atom (the "plum pudding" model) that was
mathematically coherent, but yet was completely wrong, as proved by
another Nobel Laureate, Ernest Rutherford, and countless experiments
since then.

And, so, it is possible for scientists, even prominent ones, to be wrong
in their "beliefs". Unless they can present scientific evidence that
has been published in peer-reviewed journals, their beliefs are just
opinions, and, of course, everyone has an opinion.

Dawn

"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v2kiai$150st$1@dont-email.me...

>I haven't read the book and have no plans on
> doing so, for its title betrays its fatal flaw...

Explain how the title is "fatally flawed".

> prominent scientists in the past have
> sometimes been wrong in their beliefs.

Such as Darwin. Yet he has succeeded in
deceiving the gullible masses, especially
our atheist friends.

Natural selection can only eliminate the
unfit which already existed. It does not
create the fit to begin with.

> And, so, it is possible for scientists, even
>prominent ones, to be wrong in their "beliefs".

So true.

> Unless they can present scientific evidence that
> has been published in peer-reviewed journals, their beliefs are just
> opinions, and, of course, everyone has an opinion.

Francis Collins supports his opinions
in his book. But you won't be able to
discuss them, since you vowed not to
even read it!

Thanks Dawn!

>
> Dawn

On 5/22/24 12:15 PM, Andrew wrote:
>"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v2kiai$150st$1@dont-email.me...
>
>>I haven't read the book and have no plans on
>> doing so, for its title betrays its fatal flaw...
>
>Explain how the title is "fatally flawed".
>
>> prominent scientists in the past have
>> sometimes been wrong in their beliefs.
>
>Such as Darwin. Yet he has succeeded in
>deceiving the gullible masses, especially
>our atheist friends.
>
>Natural selection can only eliminate the
>unfit which already existed. It does not
>create the fit to begin with.
>
>> And, so, it is possible for scientists, even
>>prominent ones, to be wrong in their "beliefs".
>
>So true.
>
>> Unless they can present scientific evidence that
>> has been published in peer-reviewed journals, their beliefs are just
>> opinions, and, of course, everyone has an opinion.
>
>Francis Collins supports his opinions
>in his book. But you won't be able to
>discuss them, since you vowed not to
>even read it!
>
>Thanks Dawn!
>

It's called "opportunity cost"; why should I waste my time on theistic
evolution, which even you reject??

Dawn

"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v2lhmv$1b04o$1@dont-email.me...
> Andrew wrote:
>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>
>>>I haven't read the book and have no plans on
>>> doing so, for its title betrays its fatal flaw...
>>
>>Explain how the title is "fatally flawed".
>>
>>> prominent scientists in the past have
>>> sometimes been wrong in their beliefs.
>>
>>Such as Darwin. Yet he has succeeded in
>>deceiving the gullible masses, especially
>>our atheist friends.
>>
>>Natural selection can only eliminate the
>>unfit which already existed. It does not
>>create the fit to begin with.
>>
>>> And, so, it is possible for scientists, even
>>>prominent ones, to be wrong in their "beliefs".
>>
>>So true.
>>
>>> Unless they can present scientific evidence that
>>> has been published in peer-reviewed journals, their beliefs are just
>>> opinions, and, of course, everyone has an opinion.
>>
>>Francis Collins supports his opinions
>>in his book. But you won't be able to
>>discuss them, since you vowed not to
>>even read it!
>>
>>Thanks Dawn!
>
> It's called "opportunity cost"; why should I waste my time on theistic
> evolution, which even you reject??

Right, but you're the one who posted it.

> Dawn
>
>

On 5/22/24 9:33 PM, Andrew wrote:
>"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v2lhmv$1b04o$1@dont-email.me...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>
>>>>I haven't read the book and have no plans on
>>>> doing so, for its title betrays its fatal flaw...
>>>
>>>Explain how the title is "fatally flawed".
>>>
>>>> prominent scientists in the past have
>>>> sometimes been wrong in their beliefs.
>>>
>>>Such as Darwin. Yet he has succeeded in
>>>deceiving the gullible masses, especially
>>>our atheist friends.
>>>
>>>Natural selection can only eliminate the
>>>unfit which already existed. It does not
>>>create the fit to begin with.
>>>
>>>> And, so, it is possible for scientists, even
>>>>prominent ones, to be wrong in their "beliefs".
>>>
>>>So true.
>>>
>>>> Unless they can present scientific evidence that
>>>> has been published in peer-reviewed journals, their beliefs are just
>>>> opinions, and, of course, everyone has an opinion.
>>>
>>>Francis Collins supports his opinions
>>>in his book. But you won't be able to
>>>discuss them, since you vowed not to
>>>even read it!
>>>
>>>Thanks Dawn!
>>
>> It's called "opportunity cost"; why should I waste my time on theistic
>> evolution, which even you reject??
>
>
>Right, but you're the one who posted it.
>

Okay. And, so, apparently, we agree?! But, for different reasons?

Dawn

"Dawn Flood" wrote in message news:v2o531$1t63j$1@dont-email.me...
> Andrew wrote:
>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>"Dawn Flood" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I haven't read the book and have no plans on
>>>>> doing so, for its title betrays its fatal flaw...
>>>>
>>>>Explain how the title is "fatally flawed".
>>>>
>>>>> prominent scientists in the past have
>>>>> sometimes been wrong in their beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>Such as Darwin. Yet he has succeeded in
>>>>deceiving the gullible masses, especially
>>>>our atheist friends.
>>>>
>>>>Natural selection can only eliminate the
>>>>unfit which already existed. It does not
>>>>create the fit to begin with.
>>>>
>>>>> And, so, it is possible for scientists, even
>>>>>prominent ones, to be wrong in their "beliefs".
>>>>
>>>>So true.
>>>>
>>>>> Unless they can present scientific evidence that
>>>>> has been published in peer-reviewed journals, their beliefs are just
>>>>> opinions, and, of course, everyone has an opinion.
>>>>
>>>>Francis Collins supports his opinions
>>>>in his book. But you won't be able to
>>>>discuss them, since you vowed not to
>>>>even read it!
>>>>
>>>>Thanks Dawn!
>>>
>>> It's called "opportunity cost"; why should I waste my time on theistic
>>> evolution, which even you reject??
>>
>>Right, but you're the one who posted it.
>
> Okay. And, so, apparently, we agree?! But, for different reasons?

The book you referred to had some valid
points to consider. But I agree, we reject
theistic evolution.

> Dawn

Hope you have a happy day.

Peace.

On Wed, 22 May 2024, Dawn Flood wrote:

> I haven't read the book and have no plans on doing so, for its title betrays
> its fatal flaw -- prominent scientists in the past have sometimes been wrong
> in their beliefs. Professor J.J. Thomson, a very distinguished scientist and
> Nobel Laureate in physics, over a century ago proposed a model of the atom
> (the "plum pudding" model) that was mathematically coherent, but yet was
> completely wrong, as proved by another Nobel Laureate, Ernest Rutherford, and
> countless experiments since then.
>
> And, so, it is possible for scientists, even prominent ones, to be wrong in
> their "beliefs". Unless they can present scientific evidence that has been
> published in peer-reviewed journals, their beliefs are just opinions, and, of
> course, everyone has an opinion.
>
> Dawn
>

Dawn, I wonder how you handle the following scenario, since you seem to be
a very experienced debater on usenet.

You discuss god, politics or something. Someone says, "you're wrong" and
provides you with a 300 pages scientific paper that supposedly proves it.

If it is a good debate and a respectable person, I myself, have the urge
of reading the paper, but then life knocks on the door and sadly I just
have to let go, since this is not a paid job and I cannot justify the time
it would take to read through the paper, especially, since so many papers
could be wrong are bad etc.

What do you do in these cases?

One of my favourite anecdotes was a flat earther who gave me a 16 hour
video that proved his position. Needless to say, the conversation stopped
quite quickly.

On 5/24/2024 3:21 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2024, Dawn Flood wrote:
>
>> I haven't read the book and have no plans on doing so, for its title
>> betrays its fatal flaw -- prominent scientists in the past have
>> sometimes been wrong in their beliefs.  Professor J.J. Thomson, a very
>> distinguished scientist and Nobel Laureate in physics, over a century
>> ago proposed a model of the atom (the "plum pudding" model) that was
>> mathematically coherent, but yet was completely wrong, as proved by
>> another Nobel Laureate, Ernest Rutherford, and countless experiments
>> since then.
>>
>> And, so, it is possible for scientists, even prominent ones, to be
>> wrong in their "beliefs".  Unless they can present scientific evidence
>> that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, their beliefs are
>> just opinions, and, of course, everyone has an opinion.
>>
>> Dawn
>>
>
> Dawn, I wonder how you handle the following scenario, since you seem to
> be a very experienced debater on usenet.
>
> You discuss god, politics or something. Someone says, "you're wrong" and
> provides you with a 300 pages scientific paper that supposedly proves it.
>
> If it is a good debate and a respectable person, I myself, have the urge
> of reading the paper, but then life knocks on the door and sadly I just
> have to let go, since this is not a paid job and I cannot justify the
> time it would take to read through the paper, especially, since so many
> papers could be wrong are bad etc.
>
> What do you do in these cases?
>
> One of my favourite anecdotes was a flat earther who gave me a 16 hour
> video that proved his position. Needless to say, the conversation
> stopped quite quickly.

Why 300 pages? Not many scientific papers are that long!!

Charles Darwin, of course, expressed his ideas in his large book but
Alfred Russel Wallace did the same in a few pages. I suppose that if a
few pages on a subject presented arguments that seemed plausible to me
then I would be more willing to invest the time and energy to read
through the 300 or more.

Dawn

On Fri, 24 May 2024, Dawn Flood wrote:

> On 5/24/2024 3:21 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2024, Dawn Flood wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't read the book and have no plans on doing so, for its title
>>> betrays its fatal flaw -- prominent scientists in the past have sometimes
>>> been wrong in their beliefs.  Professor J.J. Thomson, a very distinguished
>>> scientist and Nobel Laureate in physics, over a century ago proposed a
>>> model of the atom (the "plum pudding" model) that was mathematically
>>> coherent, but yet was completely wrong, as proved by another Nobel
>>> Laureate, Ernest Rutherford, and countless experiments since then.
>>>
>>> And, so, it is possible for scientists, even prominent ones, to be wrong
>>> in their "beliefs".  Unless they can present scientific evidence that has
>>> been published in peer-reviewed journals, their beliefs are just opinions,
>>> and, of course, everyone has an opinion.
>>>
>>> Dawn
>>>
>>
>> Dawn, I wonder how you handle the following scenario, since you seem to be
>> a very experienced debater on usenet.
>>
>> You discuss god, politics or something. Someone says, "you're wrong" and
>> provides you with a 300 pages scientific paper that supposedly proves it.
>>
>> If it is a good debate and a respectable person, I myself, have the urge of
>> reading the paper, but then life knocks on the door and sadly I just have
>> to let go, since this is not a paid job and I cannot justify the time it
>> would take to read through the paper, especially, since so many papers
>> could be wrong are bad etc.
>>
>> What do you do in these cases?
>>
>> One of my favourite anecdotes was a flat earther who gave me a 16 hour
>> video that proved his position. Needless to say, the conversation stopped
>> quite quickly.
>
> Why 300 pages? Not many scientific papers are that long!!
>
> Charles Darwin, of course, expressed his ideas in his large book but Alfred
> Russel Wallace did the same in a few pages. I suppose that if a few pages on
> a subject presented arguments that seemed plausible to me then I would be
> more willing to invest the time and energy to read through the 300 or more.
>
> Dawn

To me it seems suspicious that you would need 300 pages of math to prove
or disprove things, and that the one recommending the paper is not able to
summarize it in a way that makes sense to others.