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

slightly OT, but still connected



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 28th 05, 08:02 PM
Pierre Vandevenne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 28th 05, 08:58 PM
Davoud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 28th 05, 11:27 PM
Clayton Doyles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 28th 05, 11:44 PM
Tim Auton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old April 28th 05, 11:57 PM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 29th 05, 12:31 AM
Mij Adyaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 29th 05, 12:41 AM
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 29th 05, 12:43 AM
Richard Tobin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 29th 05, 12:50 AM
Cousin Ricky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 29th 05, 02:05 AM
Jan Owen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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
[ 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 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.