Now this is wisdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katy North
Printable View
Now this is wisdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katy North
I still don't really get it (why go to such lengths to take the bible literally? The book is more effective as a parable) but you're right. The desire to just shake him or tie him to a chair and force him to watch a documentory on pre-history (Clockwork-Orange style) is definately strong, but if fourty-plus years of life on this earth hasn't done anything to sway his convictions then it's best to just leave it be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Katy North
Also, ankylosaurus is the coolest land dinosaur but kronosaurus is the coolest water dinosaur:
http://cbullitt.files.wordpress.com/...ronosaurus.jpg
Bien objects to the use of carbon dating, which isn't actually used for dating dinosaur fossils. We have multiple radiometric dating methods, which each are accurate at different time frames based on their rate of degredation, that are more effective for dating something that old.
However, if we ignore radiometric dating entirely, we can make use of the simplest form of relative dating, which is rock strata. Dinosaur fossils are invariably found in lower strata than human bones. This is a clear indication that dinosaur fossils are older than humans since humans are never found in the same or lower strata (or anywhere near the same strata).
Holy crap -- that is so simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
EDIT: the two sciences that I've always enjoyed the most are botany and geology. This thread, though far from its intention, is getting me all geared up to read/learn some geology. Any good recommendations for an eager psudo-scientist?
An actual textbook! It's the only non-biased approach, and in my science-snob opinion, the only thing from which pseudo-scientists should learn. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by The Comedian
I'm not too much of a geology expert.
A great book for the layman on evolution is Dawkins' Ancestor's Tale. I know you might be balking at the mention of Richard Dawkins, but this is one of his actual science books and not a tirade against religion. It's a wonderful track of the evolution of life starting with the beginnings of human sedentary lifestyle going all the way back to bacteria. Dawkins may occasionally overwhelm the layman with detail, but his writing is clear and engaging.
Edit: It's also, unlike many popular science books, well cited with an extensive bibliography and written by an acknowledged world class evolutionary biologist.
:rant:
As atheists (or at least non-fundamentalists) we are, in society as a whole, a minority. I feel a lot of frustration when fundamentalists as a group come up to me trying to indoctrinate me to Christianity. However, the other side of the coin is that, if atheists are in the majority (as they are on this website), fundamentalists probably feel a mixture of annoyance/anger when we offhandedly reject their beliefs.
Every person has different beliefs that should be respected. We should not try and convert people or be the aggressors in arguments for atheism... this is what many non-christian were trying to escape when they converted from Christianity in the first place. We should assert ourselves, and be proud of what we are, but one cannot convert a person to atheism, atheism is merely a realization of many truths that eventually outweigh that of religion.
Bien has many valid points in many discussions. We should respect him as a human, even if we do not agree with his fundamentalism. When I was young, I was pointed at and called names in school. Let's not be reduced to the same on this forum.
I'm sure I've been guilty sometimes too,:blush: because it's hard for me to turn down a discussion of evolution. But as I raise my son, I want him to be an atheist, but I want him to be a good person who does not feel bitter towards people of other religions, and who does not feel the need to pound his fist on Darwin's books every time someone brings up a fundamentalist topic, unless it's in a context that would limit his rights as a human being.
Sorry if that sounded kinda preachy. I really like this forum; and I feel that there are many like-minded people here. I really hope we can keep discussing these things, because it's fun and an intellectual exercise, not just to lambaste other people's opinions.
*Gets down from soap-box*
Yeah, we've got quite a few science majors here eh? There's me (forestry & science psychology), you (animal sciences, right?), TheDave (envoronmental sciences if I'm not mistaken) and Pip (microbiology I think, from McGill!! *admiring tone*). Maybe more?Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
You know it! Animal biology, to be specific. Virgil's background is in science as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
But really, that opinion comes from having an anti-theist father who thinks that the work of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens is real science and all the proof the world needs that there is no god. He thinks he believes in science when what he reads is not real science. If people want to learn about science, they should be reading textbooks and science journals, not people's opinions and interpretations of science.
Yeah, but the problem there is that textbooks are so goddamn expensive. A science layman isn't going to want to spend $100 on one book.
I know. :( At least a reference book though! As long as you're not being told what to learn, you know what I mean? There are just some things that I don't believe can be thoroughly understood if they're in any way attempted to be put into "layman's terms", such as genetics for example, since Richard Dawkins likes to talk about that. If you try to simplify it, you're going to have a lot of misinterpretation. And I think that's more harmful than not learning anything at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
It's also difficult to understand journals and textbooks without some sort of substantial education in science already. Even sophomore science majors aren't expected to fully grasp primary source material from journals. These articles usually assume an audience with a minimum of a bachelor's degree in a related field.
Haha, also Dawkins' Selfish Gene isn't that bad of a book, and I do think he's a reliable source for the layman. His other books aren't worth reading really though. Stephen Jay Gould wrote popular science books too, that doesn't keep punctuated equilibrium from being taught in biology classrooms.
The Journal Nature also includes reviews and relatively layman articles in each issue along with the research publications. A very good source.
I'd rather someone with a curiosity in science be reading Scientific American than something published by a fringe group with its own private press.
Yeah, I've argued with a lot of "atheists" who I'm pretty sure have never taken an evolutionary biology course in their lives. They just absorb The God Delusion and think they know what they're talking about. That's not a good way to go about making decisions, especially if you're then going to fly around the internet bashing christians with your regurgitated "knowledge."
*edit* I honestly think that the reason why I take so much issue with it simply because it's very annoying.
Dawkins' main problem is inserting his philosophy into the books, which is what he is best know for. That is the primary reason why I think the books where he isn't philosophizing are his best.
That's more what I mean. People's interest in "science" is solely to disprove a superior being. Which is the worst reason EVER to study science.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
See my comment to Juniper, Pip. That's more what I mean. You're completely right- people with no science background could never understand more journal publications. Again, my disapproval comes more from people wanting to understand science so they can spout their "proof" that there's no god. I lost my mind when I came home for the weekend and my father told me that I should read Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth because it talks about genetics. Thanks Dad, but I'll learn about genetics from the actual geneticists in a context that is actually applicable. The Skeptical Inquirer is not a reliable source of scientific information. He also second-hand quotes Darwin. See where my irritation comes from?Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip