|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Hoagland debunked, Creationism stomped, we're on a roll!
On 30 Mar 2004 13:03:29 -0800, (Howie Glatter)
wrote: 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 . . Actually, I didn't say that. Davoud did. I said about what you said g. 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". _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 10:13 PM |
Spirit Rover Nearly Ready to Roll | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 5 | January 14th 04 05:03 PM |
Newbie query: _How_ is the shuttle roll manoeuvre performed? | Chuck Stewart | Space Shuttle | 5 | August 29th 03 06:40 PM |