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
  #21  
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

  #22  
Old March 30th 04, 09:48 PM
WinField
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

I believe that God "created the heavens and the earth".

It's one thing to acknowledge that things evolve (computers, cars,
trains & airplanes) and quite another to claim that evolution itself is
the "man behind the curtain".

[ A paragraph from the Web Link posted ...] "Evolution, simply put,
is descent with modification," the Web site states in its introduction.
"Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor
of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see
documented in the fossil record and around us today.'

What balderdash. No wonder the tide is turning against evolution as
the *CAUSE* of everything that exists. Talking donkeys, virgin births
Santa Claus etc. are common every-day occurances compared to the cosmic
stupidity that's required to alledge that the reality surrounding us
evolved by chance and "descent with modification".

Once creation is rejected, scientific phrases like "descent with
modification", "punctuated equalibrium" and "accelerated rectum fumes"
must be created, er evoluted by our learned men of science.

Winfield


Greg Crinklaw wrote:
snip
I will say no further on the subject.



  #23  
Old March 30th 04, 09:48 PM
WinField
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

I believe that God "created the heavens and the earth".

It's one thing to acknowledge that things evolve (computers, cars,
trains & airplanes) and quite another to claim that evolution itself is
the "man behind the curtain".

[ A paragraph from the Web Link posted ...] "Evolution, simply put,
is descent with modification," the Web site states in its introduction.
"Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor
of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see
documented in the fossil record and around us today.'

What balderdash. No wonder the tide is turning against evolution as
the *CAUSE* of everything that exists. Talking donkeys, virgin births
Santa Claus etc. are common every-day occurances compared to the cosmic
stupidity that's required to alledge that the reality surrounding us
evolved by chance and "descent with modification".

Once creation is rejected, scientific phrases like "descent with
modification", "punctuated equalibrium" and "accelerated rectum fumes"
must be created, er evoluted by our learned men of science.

Winfield


Greg Crinklaw wrote:
snip
I will say no further on the subject.



  #24  
Old March 30th 04, 10:03 PM
Howie Glatter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

Chris L Peterson wrote :

we need to get away from the phrase "Theory of Evolution," because

"theory" is a word that the religious right has seized upon and
twisted the meaning
of . .


Don't give up a perfectly good word because ignoramuses attempt to
hijack its meaning. What you need to do is explain and educate. A
Theory is that which was formerly a hypothesis, has been tested by
experiment and observation, and, by definition, has been able to
explain or account for all known observations. If it even fails once,
it must fall and be replaced by a new hypothesis that can explain all
observed phenomenon.

In a related way, I always point it out when that mother of all
ignoramuses uses the word that doesn't exist, "nucular".

Howie
  #25  
Old March 30th 04, 10:03 PM
Howie Glatter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

Chris L Peterson wrote :

we need to get away from the phrase "Theory of Evolution," because

"theory" is a word that the religious right has seized upon and
twisted the meaning
of . .


Don't give up a perfectly good word because ignoramuses attempt to
hijack its meaning. What you need to do is explain and educate. A
Theory is that which was formerly a hypothesis, has been tested by
experiment and observation, and, by definition, has been able to
explain or account for all known observations. If it even fails once,
it must fall and be replaced by a new hypothesis that can explain all
observed phenomenon.

In a related way, I always point it out when that mother of all
ignoramuses uses the word that doesn't exist, "nucular".

Howie
  #28  
Old March 30th 04, 11:15 PM
Edward
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!


"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message

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.

:-)


There is an equivalent error made by the zealots on the other side. It is
to elevate science to a religion. By this I mean that many have not
examined the limitations of theoretical thought and with blind faith buy
into the belief system of logical positivism.

Ed T.


  #29  
Old March 30th 04, 11:15 PM
Edward
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!


"Greg Crinklaw" wrote in message

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.

:-)


There is an equivalent error made by the zealots on the other side. It is
to elevate science to a religion. By this I mean that many have not
examined the limitations of theoretical thought and with blind faith buy
into the belief system of logical positivism.

Ed T.


  #30  
Old March 30th 04, 11:28 PM
Brian Tung
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
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. :-)


Apparently, you haven't been trained in the ways of numerology, coded
readings, and wordplay, for then you would know that those things are
all in there--well, except perhaps for cell phones.

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


I'm terribly sorry. I'll go crawl into my little hole now.

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
 




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 06:27 AM.


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.