|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
slightly OT, but still connected
Hello,
In a way, that's scary http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../4341062a.html Semantical translation, quantum leap, whatever... We'll soon be at the "who designed the designer" level... -- Pierre Vandevenne - DataRescue sa/nv - www.datarescue.com The IDA Pro Disassembler & Debugger - world leader in hostile code analysis PhotoRescue - advanced data recovery for digital photographic media latest review: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1590497,00.asp |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pierre Vandevenne:
Hello, In a way, that's scary http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../4341062a.html Semantical translation, quantum leap, whatever... We'll soon be at the "who designed the designer" level... I think that the noise being made by the religious right is a death rattle. The Universe is not going to magically become 6,000 years old, and they know it. Mainstream Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, have long since come to terms with the fact that the Universe is about 14 billion years old, and the Earth about 4.5 byo. The religious right will not be able to undo evolution. They see themselves as becoming more and more marginalized, and they are circling the wagons -- but the circle is closing in on them. Davoud -- usenet *at* davidillig dawt com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Davoud" wrote in message ... Pierre Vandevenne: Hello, In a way, that's scary http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../4341062a.html Semantical translation, quantum leap, whatever... We'll soon be at the "who designed the designer" level... I think that the noise being made by the religious right is a death rattle. The Universe is not going to magically become 6,000 years old, and they know it. On the other side of the coin, I don't see any evidence that the universe is really billions of years old. We have two schools of thought here that are similar in one way: both ages come from man. Man, through the disciples, wrote The Bible with Divine guidance; and it has also been man who has determined the age of the universe in the billions of years. Are we so sure that radiocarbon and other methods of dating aren't invalid? Are we so sure that The Bible is correct? The point is... no matter how you look at it, you must pick what you believe is the most correct and depend on man's correctness (or lack thereof). To me, there's just as much "evidence", if you will, that the universe is 6,000 years old that there is 20 billion and I remain unconvinced by the so-called evidence that it is anything but. However, that is my "belief" just as you must "believe" that it's 20 billion. Mainstream Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, have long since come to terms with the fact that the Universe is about 14 billion years old, and the Earth about 4.5 byo. Not necessarily. The religious right will not be able to undo evolution. I see nothing... absolutely nothing... that convinces me that evolution is a fact or ever has been. They say they find skeletons of ancient ape-like man that are our nearest relative and what we supposedly were before "evolving" into modern man, but do we know for sure that that species just wasn't another type of gorilla? No one alive knows the answer. They see themselves as becoming more and more marginalized, and they are circling the wagons -- but the circle is closing in on them. Is it the Christians finding themselves in this position- or the athiests? I'll tell you one thing, if I were an athiest, I really would be concerned at this current time in history. Clayton Davoud -- usenet *at* davidillig dawt com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Clayton Doyles" wrote:
"Davoud" wrote in message ... [snip] I think that the noise being made by the religious right is a death rattle. The Universe is not going to magically become 6,000 years old, and they know it. On the other side of the coin, I don't see any evidence that the universe is really billions of years old. Try looking for some. Tim -- May contain traces of nuts. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:27:27 GMT, "Clayton Doyles" wrote:
On the other side of the coin, I don't see any evidence that the universe is really billions of years old. There is overwhelming _scientific_ evidence that the Universe is billions of years old. We have two schools of thought here that are similar in one way: both ages come from man. Yes, that's exactly it. There are two schools of thought- religious and scientific. You may consider it an act of faith to accept one or the other, but once you have done so the evidence that science provides is internally consistent. Most religions simply provide a mass of facts and beliefs that don't follow from one another, and are often contradictory. If you accept religion, you are thinking in a completely different way than a rationalist. Are we so sure that radiocarbon and other methods of dating aren't invalid? Are we so sure that The Bible is correct? The point is... no matter how you look at it, you must pick what you believe is the most correct and depend on man's correctness (or lack thereof). There is really just one science. Theories hold together or they don't. Scientifically, we are very certain about the quality of dating methods. Why should we believe the Bible? It is simply one of many collections of stories, one that is accepted as truth by a minority of humans (and an even smaller minority of all humans who have ever lived). While I'm not religious, if I were to rationally evaluate my religious options, Christianity would be about the last of my choices, with Judaism and Islam right behind. What I find interesting about these discussions is how rarely anyone offers a straight science versus religion question. Usually it is science versus the Bible, as if that is the only religious choice. I don't believe the Bible is correct because so many of the stories are just too damned silly, the characters are so unbelievable, and the morals are reprehensible. I don't believe the New Testament is correct for the same reasons, and because I consider the fundamental premises of salvation from sin to be unbelievable and offensive. IMO, there are far better spiritual choices- and they need not conflict with science at all. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This post is VERY OT and is one of the prime examples of what is wrong with
this newsgroup. It is totally off-topic and has nothing to do with amateur astronomy. All that this post accomplishes is to add fuel to the fire that exists between that Christians and Atheists that read this newsgroup. The same goes for liberal vs conservative political perspectives. Let's stick to the topic of amateur astronomy and ignore these trolling posts rather then replying to them. Also, please thinks before you post to determine if your post is going to offend anyone's religion or political convictions. "Chris L Peterson" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:27:27 GMT, "Clayton Doyles" wrote: On the other side of the coin, I don't see any evidence that the universe is really billions of years old. There is overwhelming _scientific_ evidence that the Universe is billions of years old. We have two schools of thought here that are similar in one way: both ages come from man. Yes, that's exactly it. There are two schools of thought- religious and scientific. You may consider it an act of faith to accept one or the other, but once you have done so the evidence that science provides is internally consistent. Most religions simply provide a mass of facts and beliefs that don't follow from one another, and are often contradictory. If you accept religion, you are thinking in a completely different way than a rationalist. Are we so sure that radiocarbon and other methods of dating aren't invalid? Are we so sure that The Bible is correct? The point is... no matter how you look at it, you must pick what you believe is the most correct and depend on man's correctness (or lack thereof). There is really just one science. Theories hold together or they don't. Scientifically, we are very certain about the quality of dating methods. Why should we believe the Bible? It is simply one of many collections of stories, one that is accepted as truth by a minority of humans (and an even smaller minority of all humans who have ever lived). While I'm not religious, if I were to rationally evaluate my religious options, Christianity would be about the last of my choices, with Judaism and Islam right behind. What I find interesting about these discussions is how rarely anyone offers a straight science versus religion question. Usually it is science versus the Bible, as if that is the only religious choice. I don't believe the Bible is correct because so many of the stories are just too damned silly, the characters are so unbelievable, and the morals are reprehensible. I don't believe the New Testament is correct for the same reasons, and because I consider the fundamental premises of salvation from sin to be unbelievable and offensive. IMO, there are far better spiritual choices- and they need not conflict with science at all. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:31:28 -0700, "Mij Adyaw"
wrote: This post is VERY OT and is one of the prime examples of what is wrong with this newsgroup. A discussion of what science means is not off-topic IMO. I consider it a prime example of what is _right_ about this newsgroup, and a reason I mostly avoid moderated forums. If this doesn't interest you, don't read it. Nobody is making you, and it is easy to ignore threads. Also, please thinks before you post to determine if your post is going to offend anyone's religion or political convictions. Since I don't consider people with religious convictions to be intellectually human, I can't offend them by any definition of the word I accept. And nobody should be offended by a political view they don't happen to agree with. (And I did think about this last paragraph before posting it g.) _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article inece.5023$_o.1122@fed1read03,
Mij Adyaw wrote: Also, please thinks before you post to determine if your post is going to offend anyone's religion or political convictions. Oh, we do! -- Richard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../4341062a.html Semantical translation, quantum leap, whatever... We'll soon be at the "who designed the designer" level... The *concept* of intelligent design sounds intriguing. However the Intelligent Design turns out to be not just a concept, but a *movement*. Or two. Part of the movement turns out to be the same old, rancid wine in yet another new bottle. At least when they called themselves "creationists," they weren't trying to bamboozle anyone. But after the courts carefully pointed out the 1st Amendment, creationism became "creation science." Now that the courts have decreed their failure to discern the difference between creationism and creation science, we have a new, scientific "no, really, *this* time it's really scientific" alternative, "Intelligent Design." Then you listen to the ID crowd, to see what theories and models they have proposed. Dang, looks mighty familiar, doesn't it...? But what about those ID proponents who don't try to link the Bible into intelligent design? Well, what about them? Seriously, man, do they have ANYTHING??? Forget it. The "non-denominational" faction is just another attempt to reconcile two disciplines that don't need to reconcile. At best, it is philosophy--and even philosophers don't try to shoehorn themselves into science classrooms. At worst, it's yet another variant of demoting the Chief Astronomer to "god of the gaps." Injecting divine intervention into science in this manner is blasphemy. First of all, the very desire to do so presumes that the Almighty needs us to save Her--a sublimely offensive idea to those who push ID in the first place! And then, just how *is* this religious intrusion supposed to save God? I'm sure everyone here knows the problem with god of the gaps: with every scientific advance, God shrinks. While not all will agree that this is a bad thing, it is the very conclusion that ID pushers wish to avoid. After all, they call Him "Jehovah" or "Yahweh," loosely translated as "I am," "He Who exists," "That Which is necessary." If Mr. Cordova needs intelligent design to validate his Christian faith, then i suggest he avoid pursuing the idea to its logical conclusion. Clear skies! ------------------- Richard Callwood III -------------------- ~ U.S. Virgin Islands ~ USDA zone 11 ~ 18.3N, 64.9W ~ ~ eastern Massachusetts ~ USDA zone 6 (1992-95) ~ --------------- http://cac.uvi.edu/staff/rc3/ --------------- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Since I don't consider people with religious convictions to be
intellectually human, I can't offend them by any definition of the word I accept. And nobody should be offended by a political view they don't happen to agree with. (And I did think about this last paragraph before posting it g.) I believe everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs, whether they be atheistic or religious in nature. But this is NOT the forum for that, as the SAA charter clearly defines. I'm not going to post the charter again, because I've already posted it several times recently. I guess I have to add that this is the probably the most totally intolerant view I remember ever seeing on SAA, in EITHER direction, even though we shouldn't be seeing it at all... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[ Slightly off stopic ] But interesting | John Zinni | Misc | 0 | October 25th 03 11:56 PM |
Invention: Action Device To Generate Unidirectional Force. | Abhi | Astronomy Misc | 21 | August 14th 03 09:57 PM |
Q. If you're next to a mountain, and a weight on a pendulum is slightly attracted to the mountain ? ? Wait a minute . . . | Jim Jones | Misc | 3 | August 13th 03 05:10 PM |
Invention For Revolution In Transport Industry | Abhi | Astronomy Misc | 16 | August 6th 03 02:42 AM |