|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |