TED Community » edward long

More About Me

I'm passionate about

The pursuit and defense of Truth.

An idea worth spreading

Selfishness breeds evil. If we cared for one another as much as we care for ourselves life would improve. The hard part is to control the corrupt, sinful heart of Man. Global peace and prosperity depend upon it.

Talk to me about

Truth and Humor (sometimes they are the same).

People don't know that I'm good at

Keeping the one thing I'm good at hidden.

My TED Story

Directed via an aggregator site to TED, I was elated to find an atmosphere charged with optimism and constructive energy where conversations, ideas and debates are monitored for compliance to basic rules of decency, respect and civility.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +146.30 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A comment on Conversation: For whom do our soldiers fight?

  4 hours ago: It would be great if every armed conflict on foreign soil could end in such a way that it could be said that the effort was necessary and saved the free world. But real life is less satisfying. Your question asks why, and for whom, those who go to foreign battlefields do it. Unlike the outcome, the reason folks go does not vary much. They go to participate in the endeavors deemed necessary by their nation's leaders. They go to defend what they believe from those who would forbid it and would replace it with oppressive captivity. They go to help other nations struggling for freedom. They go to search and destroy evil maniacs who reign death and destruction upon their own people. They go to do their part in preserving the unbroken legacy of paying the price of freedom. You can question the historical reasons for deploying troops into harm's way, but you should be careful about questioning the motives of those who go so others can stay and continue to speak freely.

• A reply on Conversation: Evolution : "just a theory". Scientific caution is sometime confusing.

  4 hours ago: "Popper wasn't talking about Evoultion, he was talking about Natural Selection?" I wasn't talking about TED, I was talking about TED Conversations. I wasn't talking about World War II, I was talking about the Battle of the Bulge. Shall I go on? Please say no! Thanks for the heads-up on the total dissimilarity between the words metaphysical and religion. One problem though. . . they are actually similar enough to be commonly interchangeable. When a scientist/philosopher calls information metaphysical the obvious idea being communicated is that said information is absolutely, positively NOT science. Thanks for confessing that calling Evolution both a Fact and a Theory is confusing. Know why it's confusing? Because the Law of Non-Contradiction says nothing can be both A and NOT A. A clear-thinking mind will be confused by an infraction of this Law. We, astonishingly, also disagree on what it means to disassociate one'self from something. I see such statements as, "Darwin was wrong." and "Darwin had (interesting choice of words there) some mistakes." to be the opposite of support/endorsement/association. Don't the Neo-evolutionists eschew Charlie's name in their new look? Why is that? You can find better models of perspecuity and veracity than Darwin. The man declared that genetic traits BLEND in reproduction!! You willingly excuse such a monumental blunder perpetrated for the sole purpose of making (another of his blunders) Natural Selection appear more plausible? Hardly what I call proper presentation of data and ideas. I see him more as an appropriate example of the careless, hasty, ill-advised presentation of ideas. You also have a pleasing weekend, although I fear I will be preoccupied trying to figure out what phrase you left out of your closing statement: QUOTE-- "Evolution does not have high enough [gap in tape here] the reputation it deserves."

• A comment on Conversation: How can we get the facts on what really makes humans tick?

  19 hours ago: Read the Holy Bible.

• A reply on Conversation: Evolution : "just a theory". Scientific caution is sometime confusing.

  19 hours ago: "Popper never said. . . ?" Look in Unended Quest, An Intellectual Autobiography. Lasalle, Il: Open Court. Page 168. QUOTE: "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories."
  Please stop assuming I don't know what Evolutionists mean when they say "theory". I also know there is a definitive difference between FACT and THEORY. They are not interchangeable no matter how evolutionists want them to be. Thanks for confessing to being non-omniscient, Entropy, that took courage, I'm sure. You do know there is a very real tendancy to let the public think Evolution is a FACT in totality? By the way, we ought not nitpick about the relationship between Darwin and modern evolution. He made some real blunders and seriously over-stepped the limits of his knowledge (like Heredity). I call it disassociation, you call it foundational and quite important. A spade is a spade and Darwin was often wrong. Thanks to its supporters and the lethargy'apathy of the average person, Evolution has a much higher reputation than it ought to. Be well Mr. Driven.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Evolution : "just a theory". Scientific caution is sometime confusing.

  1 day ago: RE: "Even the science you agree with . . . " Really? Are gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics theories? I think they are infrangible Laws. Simply reclassifying all knowledge as theory is not very scientific. There is a difference between Evolution and Laws. There is a need for the Law of Conservation in Physics because some quantities can NEVER change. Not everything is just a theory, some explanations are FACT. Just about everything has changed in Darwin's Theory and there is no reason to accept it as a Law, as the only possible explanation of life on Earth. There are too many holes in it for the scientific community to be duping the public into embracing it as the answer to all questions about life. Too many holes. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

• A reply on Conversation: Given the rates of poverty and despair in even our most "advanced" nations and the onset of global warming, is space exploration prudent?

  1 day ago: What private folks do is their freedom. If my tax dollars are being used then I have an opinion. The USA cannot force underdeveloped nations to teach their people to support themselves because it is considered aggression and imperialism. So we use the money to map Venus and roam around on Mars. As I said, if this planet is doomed, which I don't think it is, then we would be justified in scouting for a new terrestrial ball.

• A comment on Conversation: Given the rates of poverty and despair in even our most "advanced" nations and the onset of global warming, is space exploration prudent?

  1 day ago: If the rationale for funding space exploration is to find a new location to replace this doomed one, then yes, it is prudent. I cannot imagine any other rationale which would justify letting one person in seven starve to death while spending billions on space projects.

• A comment on Conversation: Do you think we meet the people in our lives for a specific reason or is it all random?

  1 day ago: Your question rightly applies not just to the people in our lives, but the events also. Folks who believe we have control of our lives via an INTERNAL,self-controlled mechanism will probably say the people we meet are the result of our decisions and purposes leading-up to the meeting. Folks who believe the people and events of our lives are EXTERNALLY controlled by a mechanism beyond our influence will probably say all is controlled and purposeful. Very few thinking people would say our lives are random and chaotic, without purpose or consequences. I personally believe the people we meet and the events we experience are the result of an external mechanism (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) guiding every detail.

• A comment on Conversation: Dejar el conformismo y proponer respuestas

  1 day ago: El riesgo es parte del juego de Dios.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Evolution : "just a theory". Scientific caution is sometime confusing.

  2 days ago: Roger that Entropy! I'm down with Gravity (no pun intended)! Maybe it's time for the supporters of the Theory of Evolution to publicize their disassociation with The Origin of the Species. Perhaps it's time for a fresh explanation and a new name for what we have all been calling Evolution for the last hundred years or so. Is the process, whatever we name it, still based upon natural selection of beneficial mutations over eons of time from a common ancestor? And, does the "new" Evolution answer the question about how life came from non-living chemicals? Does "neo-Evolution" offer any explanation as to how the DNA code developed? Does "Non-Darwinian Evolution" offer an explanation regarding why genetic mutations, which are overwhelmingly non-beneficial, are said to be the reason for the vast diversity of life on Earth? Also, multiple protein/enzyme components are required for essential biochemical pathways and nano-machines to exist. Does "Evolution 2.0" offer any explanation as to how these components came to be? When a piece of ancient pottery is discovered it is accepted as a designed thing. But, when a new biological truth is discovered do the new Evolutionary Scientists still accept it as not being designed, but rather being a result of natural selection of beneficial. . . etc. etc.?. Has the latest version of Evolution answered Karl Popper's accusation that it. ". . . is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research program.” ? If Evolution, or whatever it is now called, is not "just a theory", then what is it?