A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 30th 04, 07:07 PM
Stephen Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

"AJ Sutters" wrote in message news:AZhac.5077
I work in an all white occupation!


Please explain.

  #12  
Old March 30th 04, 07:56 PM
Greg Crinklaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

AJ Sutters wrote:
Is there actually concrete proof of something showing evolution?


Absolutely, if you accept the definition of "proof" as being
overwhelming evidence with the same degree of certainty as, say, the
earth being round rather than flat. Just because science don't use the
word "proof" or other absolutes does not imply it is faith based.
That's just a lie. Science is evidence based.

Bottom line, there is as much "theory" involved in the concept of evolution
as there is in Creation.


Another lie. Evolution is as much an observation as it is a scientific
theory (the word in the scientific use does *not* mean "speculation" as
you are incorrectly assuming). There is a huge body of observational
and experimental evidence to support evolution. Just because you
*choose* to remain ignorant of it does not mean it doesn't exist! There
is not one shred of objective evidence to support creationism. While
that may not invalidate creationism, it makes equating the two, as you
did, pure silliness. To do so is little more than a delusion or an
untimely meaningless tactic employed to keep one from losing face by
losing a debate.

There is no contradiction between science and Christianity any more than
there was a contradiction between science in Galileo's day and
Christianity then: the only contradiction is in the minds of a few
people who have backed themselves into a corner with their own very
narrow *interpretation* of the bible. All one had to do is look through
Galileo's telescope to see the truth then. You can't win this battle
any more than the church could against Galileo; the truth is clear and
obvious to all those who are willing to simply open their eyes and look.
Those who refuse to look, as some refused to look through Galileo's
scope, are not doing themselves any favors and at best they are forcing
a very dangerous political choice between a rational based society and a
return to the dark ages.

I will say no further on the subject.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

  #13  
Old March 30th 04, 07:56 PM
Greg Crinklaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

AJ Sutters wrote:
Is there actually concrete proof of something showing evolution?


Absolutely, if you accept the definition of "proof" as being
overwhelming evidence with the same degree of certainty as, say, the
earth being round rather than flat. Just because science don't use the
word "proof" or other absolutes does not imply it is faith based.
That's just a lie. Science is evidence based.

Bottom line, there is as much "theory" involved in the concept of evolution
as there is in Creation.


Another lie. Evolution is as much an observation as it is a scientific
theory (the word in the scientific use does *not* mean "speculation" as
you are incorrectly assuming). There is a huge body of observational
and experimental evidence to support evolution. Just because you
*choose* to remain ignorant of it does not mean it doesn't exist! There
is not one shred of objective evidence to support creationism. While
that may not invalidate creationism, it makes equating the two, as you
did, pure silliness. To do so is little more than a delusion or an
untimely meaningless tactic employed to keep one from losing face by
losing a debate.

There is no contradiction between science and Christianity any more than
there was a contradiction between science in Galileo's day and
Christianity then: the only contradiction is in the minds of a few
people who have backed themselves into a corner with their own very
narrow *interpretation* of the bible. All one had to do is look through
Galileo's telescope to see the truth then. You can't win this battle
any more than the church could against Galileo; the truth is clear and
obvious to all those who are willing to simply open their eyes and look.
Those who refuse to look, as some refused to look through Galileo's
scope, are not doing themselves any favors and at best they are forcing
a very dangerous political choice between a rational based society and a
return to the dark ages.

I will say no further on the subject.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

  #14  
Old March 30th 04, 08:34 PM
Brian Tung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Bottom line, there is as much "theory" involved in the concept of evolution
as there is in Creation.


Another lie. Evolution is as much an observation as it is a scientific
theory (the word in the scientific use does *not* mean "speculation" as
you are incorrectly assuming).


In that, you are certainly correct, but I think it is a bit harsh to call
it a lie (at least, a lie on AJ's part). In my experience, the lie, if
it is anywhere, is institutional. Most people who promulgate the "theory"
line as though it held any water do not do it to deceive; they really
believe it. I believe we should show the same ability to proselytize the
*method* of science as many do the *word* of their religion.

Possibly you didn't mean to call AJ a liar, but I can see how one might
read it that way, and I don't think we want to go down that road.

AJ, the word "hypothesis" in scientific usage has the meaning you
attribute to "theory." A "theory," however, is quite more. It is a
consistent and falsifiable explanation of a set of phenomena that is,
in addition, experimentally tested. Colloquially, you might say that
it is presumed true until further evidence contradicts it. For example,
we refer to "the (special and general) theory of relativity," but that
does not mean that scientists relegate it to the level of "some crazy
idea that my Uncle Harold had over a couple of beers last Sunday." You
might disagree with them, but it is an error to use the fact that
scientists call it a theory to support the assertion that it is somehow
uncertain in their minds, or incompletely supported, or something like
that.

I agree that it is confusing because we have the informal usage, like
"I have a theory about why she's not returning my calls." Here it does
mean a plausible idea put forth for verification, but scientists would
not use the word "theory" there--at least, not in scientific usage. If
they had to put that in scientific prose, they might use the word
"hypothesis."

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
  #15  
Old March 30th 04, 08:34 PM
Brian Tung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Bottom line, there is as much "theory" involved in the concept of evolution
as there is in Creation.


Another lie. Evolution is as much an observation as it is a scientific
theory (the word in the scientific use does *not* mean "speculation" as
you are incorrectly assuming).


In that, you are certainly correct, but I think it is a bit harsh to call
it a lie (at least, a lie on AJ's part). In my experience, the lie, if
it is anywhere, is institutional. Most people who promulgate the "theory"
line as though it held any water do not do it to deceive; they really
believe it. I believe we should show the same ability to proselytize the
*method* of science as many do the *word* of their religion.

Possibly you didn't mean to call AJ a liar, but I can see how one might
read it that way, and I don't think we want to go down that road.

AJ, the word "hypothesis" in scientific usage has the meaning you
attribute to "theory." A "theory," however, is quite more. It is a
consistent and falsifiable explanation of a set of phenomena that is,
in addition, experimentally tested. Colloquially, you might say that
it is presumed true until further evidence contradicts it. For example,
we refer to "the (special and general) theory of relativity," but that
does not mean that scientists relegate it to the level of "some crazy
idea that my Uncle Harold had over a couple of beers last Sunday." You
might disagree with them, but it is an error to use the fact that
scientists call it a theory to support the assertion that it is somehow
uncertain in their minds, or incompletely supported, or something like
that.

I agree that it is confusing because we have the informal usage, like
"I have a theory about why she's not returning my calls." Here it does
mean a plausible idea put forth for verification, but scientists would
not use the word "theory" there--at least, not in scientific usage. If
they had to put that in scientific prose, they might use the word
"hypothesis."

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt
  #16  
Old March 30th 04, 08:46 PM
lal_truckee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

Davoud wrote:
There are quite a few people
who will never accept our brotherhood with the people of Africa


You do it yourself: who is the "our" in this sentence?
  #17  
Old March 30th 04, 08:46 PM
lal_truckee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

Davoud wrote:
There are quite a few people
who will never accept our brotherhood with the people of Africa


You do it yourself: who is the "our" in this sentence?
  #18  
Old March 30th 04, 08:55 PM
AJ Sutters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

Believe what you want. Defend what you want. I didn't start the thread,
but I sure as hell am not going to stand by when an insulting post like the
above appears without me saying something. If these "hellraisers" don't
expect a response, they shouldn't be posting an off-topic post in an
astronomy group.

As you said, end of discussion.

AJ

"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message
...
AJ Sutters wrote:
Is there actually concrete proof of something showing evolution?


Absolutely, if you accept the definition of "proof" as being
overwhelming evidence with the same degree of certainty as, say, the
earth being round rather than flat. Just because science don't use the
word "proof" or other absolutes does not imply it is faith based.
That's just a lie. Science is evidence based.

Bottom line, there is as much "theory" involved in the concept of

evolution
as there is in Creation.


Another lie. Evolution is as much an observation as it is a scientific
theory (the word in the scientific use does *not* mean "speculation" as
you are incorrectly assuming). There is a huge body of observational
and experimental evidence to support evolution. Just because you
*choose* to remain ignorant of it does not mean it doesn't exist! There
is not one shred of objective evidence to support creationism. While
that may not invalidate creationism, it makes equating the two, as you
did, pure silliness. To do so is little more than a delusion or an
untimely meaningless tactic employed to keep one from losing face by
losing a debate.

There is no contradiction between science and Christianity any more than
there was a contradiction between science in Galileo's day and
Christianity then: the only contradiction is in the minds of a few
people who have backed themselves into a corner with their own very
narrow *interpretation* of the bible. All one had to do is look through
Galileo's telescope to see the truth then. You can't win this battle
any more than the church could against Galileo; the truth is clear and
obvious to all those who are willing to simply open their eyes and look.
Those who refuse to look, as some refused to look through Galileo's
scope, are not doing themselves any favors and at best they are forcing
a very dangerous political choice between a rational based society and a
return to the dark ages.

I will say no further on the subject.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen



  #19  
Old March 30th 04, 08:55 PM
AJ Sutters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

Believe what you want. Defend what you want. I didn't start the thread,
but I sure as hell am not going to stand by when an insulting post like the
above appears without me saying something. If these "hellraisers" don't
expect a response, they shouldn't be posting an off-topic post in an
astronomy group.

As you said, end of discussion.

AJ

"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message
...
AJ Sutters wrote:
Is there actually concrete proof of something showing evolution?


Absolutely, if you accept the definition of "proof" as being
overwhelming evidence with the same degree of certainty as, say, the
earth being round rather than flat. Just because science don't use the
word "proof" or other absolutes does not imply it is faith based.
That's just a lie. Science is evidence based.

Bottom line, there is as much "theory" involved in the concept of

evolution
as there is in Creation.


Another lie. Evolution is as much an observation as it is a scientific
theory (the word in the scientific use does *not* mean "speculation" as
you are incorrectly assuming). There is a huge body of observational
and experimental evidence to support evolution. Just because you
*choose* to remain ignorant of it does not mean it doesn't exist! There
is not one shred of objective evidence to support creationism. While
that may not invalidate creationism, it makes equating the two, as you
did, pure silliness. To do so is little more than a delusion or an
untimely meaningless tactic employed to keep one from losing face by
losing a debate.

There is no contradiction between science and Christianity any more than
there was a contradiction between science in Galileo's day and
Christianity then: the only contradiction is in the minds of a few
people who have backed themselves into a corner with their own very
narrow *interpretation* of the bible. All one had to do is look through
Galileo's telescope to see the truth then. You can't win this battle
any more than the church could against Galileo; the truth is clear and
obvious to all those who are willing to simply open their eyes and look.
Those who refuse to look, as some refused to look through Galileo's
scope, are not doing themselves any favors and at best they are forcing
a very dangerous political choice between a rational based society and a
return to the dark ages.

I will say no further on the subject.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen



  #20  
Old March 30th 04, 09:21 PM
Greg Crinklaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

Brian Tung wrote:
Possibly you didn't mean to call AJ a liar, but I can see how one might
read it that way, and I don't think we want to go down that road.


I most certainly did not mean to call AJ a liar. I apologize that it
came off that way. I was simply using the strongest word possible to
label the idea espoused. As you said the lie is institutional; people
tell it to each other to bolster and unify their common position against
a perceived threat from science. But this threat, like the idea
espoused, is not real.

Also, since I'm here, I should have added this: the core of Christian
religious belief is that there is a Creator. If one chooses to believe
that the Universe must have been created this is their choice; it is the
basis of their faith. Science does not invalidate that choice nor does
it even address the issue. This is the central misunderstanding and the
crux of the mistake being made by the creationists. Science cannot,
will not, and does not in any way pose a threat to this core belief. If
the Universe began with a Big Bang, then one is free to claim God made
it happen. If lightening is made of flowing electrons, it is as God
made it. If gravity is best described as a curvature of spacetime then
God is a genius who works in very odd mysterious ways. If species
evolve one is free to claim that God created a Universe in which that
happens. Anyone who claims science invalidates any of that is mistaking
their own beliefs for science and they are ultimately as mistaken as any
creationist. Unfortunately the truth here is often muddled in the
exchange of people at either end of the spectrum, both making the same
mistake! I suppose God invented irony too. :-)

The core mistake of the creationists is not to believe in creation. No,
their mistake is to go one giant step beyond that and try to treat the
bible as if it were a science text. It is not a science text. If it
were it would have foretold the mysteries of the Universe that have been
discovered in the last 2000 years: the Sun at the center of the solar
system, planets bound by gravity, galaxies, electricity, magnetism,
nucleosynthesis, DNA, craters on the Moon, the transistor, lasers,
nuclear fusion, a warm wet mars, dinosaurs, angioplasty, gravitational
lensing, cell phones, and of course the fact that Women are from Venus. :-)

In fact, the bible can be noted for how devoid it is of such things!
Surely that should be obvious... If the bible is a science text it's a
really, really terribly bad one. :-)

The error (made by a few well meaning but misguided Christians) is to
treat the bible as if it is, in fact, a science text, when it should be
obvious to even the most fervently religious yet clear thinking person
that it is not. And there you have it in a nutshell: this is not about
science or religion at all. It's about a few irrational, illogical
thinkers. The travesty here is that our society is ignorant enough
about what science is and what it is not that these irrational ideas
have been allowed to creep into some mainstream churches.

Brian, by making me post again on this thread you have now made a liar
out of me. Shame on you!

Clear skies,
Greg


--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply remove spleen

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA's Mars Rovers Roll Into Martian Winter Ron Astronomy Misc 10 July 20th 04 03:59 PM
Healthier Spirit Gets Back to Work While Opportunity Prepares to Roll Ron Astronomy Misc 0 January 29th 04 11:13 PM
Spirit Rover Nearly Ready to Roll Ron Astronomy Misc 5 January 14th 04 06:03 PM
Newbie query: _How_ is the shuttle roll manoeuvre performed? Chuck Stewart Space Shuttle 5 August 29th 03 06:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.