I haven't mentioned Dawkins much recently, but in the last conversation with Melanie I did mention him a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
Printable View
I haven't mentioned Dawkins much recently, but in the last conversation with Melanie I did mention him a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
facts are stubborn things. And are also subjective things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
Richard Dawkins is a moron, but that doesn't mean evolution doesn't still occur. Do you know anything about background microwave radiation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
mal4mac, thank you for clearing up your Lit-Net history for Frostball
NCaberet - posts 435 and 437 cover my thoughts about evolution. Regarding CMB, it's an assumption as to where it came from and how old it is but, no, I didn't know anything about it until you mentioned it. Thank you. I'll read more.
It appears that only 2 people are able to discuss "What Astronomy is Not Telling Us About
Our Created Solar System"…thank you YesNo and 108Fountains since they are the only
ones that watched this video:
What Astronomers Are Not Telling Us
"Our Created Solar System"
Click on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI
i understand that you have an unfavorable opinion of evolution.i don't believe in gravity, but it exists. you can have what ever opinion on evolution you want, but it still happens regardless. i watched the video. it did not change MY opinion. saying that "neptune is far away from the sun, so it should be cold, but it isnt." That isnt proof that either the Bible is right, nor that evolution is wrong. In fact, it has nothing to do with either. Genetics and Astrophysics are too completely different fields of study. Genetics does not concern itself with the temperature of planets and astrophysics does not deal in the reproduction of genetic material. I'm sure that Io is an anomaly, as is Titan and Venus and Europa. Al have varying surface temperatures and are all at different distances from the sun. The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
Here's a real astronomer, Phil Plait, demolishing Spike's ideas:Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...to_evolve.html
I don't want to beat my head against a wall so I'll be avoiding the video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCabret
um…i believe in evolution according to God's plan within species, adapting to their environment…but not turning into new species…like dinosaurs becoming birds...no proof of that...nuff said. Regarding the planets in the video, sounds like you skimmed over the video and missed a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by HCabret
Aw c'mon, make my day :) (just joking)Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I find it odd that you worked so hard all day at trying to find people and articles to "demolish"
my factual video, "What You Aren't being Told About Astronomy…Our Created Solar System"
yet, you haven't watched it yourself and have no desire to form your own opinion.
Do you always search out the naysayers and mindlessly jump on the bandwagon with them?
Good luck with that.
After reading that blog post, I don't think he demolished anything. So, his main concern is that Psarris used the word "evolution" to describe change. And what's wrong with that? In the context evolution is the correct term to use. It did make me wonder why astronomers themselves like to call the change they describe "evolution".Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
The problem is that it doesn't explain the complexity especially as a species goes against entropy and becomes more, not less, complex. It just claims to explain it. Consider Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium for evidence that the change happens rather abruptly in contrast to what a neo-Darwinist would want to see happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostball
Also consider the experiments on E. coli by Patricia Foster. There we see hypermutations occurring in a small population of the group that is being stressed by a change of food in its environment. Based on this, both the random and slow characteristics of mutations can be dismissed. They are part of a group's coordinated attempt to survive where individuals willingly risk hypermutation so the group survives. It really has little to do with that mythical selfish gene.
I still maintain that evolution is not something anyone can either believe in or not believe in. Regardless of any literature claiming to take any sort of position on evolution, it still happens. I don't believe in gravity, but it exists regardless of my opinion about gravity. Dinosaurs into Birds? You don't know very much about taxonomy do you? Are humans animals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
This thread is 31 pages long, so I'm probably restating what's been said. Nonetheless, I am compelled to go on a rant, because people are stupid.
Disregarding the fact that there is no such thing as "science vs religion," on evolution:
Why is it that every time the subject of creationism vs evolution rears its head, I always want to beat myself to death out of embarrassment for sharing a planet with creationists? As a friend of mine once quite eloquently put the matter, "I believe in God. I don't understand God. I don't believe in evolution, I understand evolution. Belief implies that there's something to be contested."
Why is it that Darwinists can come to the fight armed to the teeth with statistics, fossil records, hard, observable science, and a mountain of evidence, and all creationists bring is a fundamentalist view of an ancient book, and yet we still somehow think there's even a fight to be had?
Why is it that I'm told by my fellow Christians that I'm a ****ty person for believing in evolution, but if I tell them that they're stupid for not believing in evolution, I'm being uncivilized?
Why is it that it's perfectly okay for creationists to blatantly ignore proof of evolution, (Lenski experiment, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, genetic tests, etc.) and still insist that creationism is a viable method for conducting scientific inquiry? (When your science relies on ignoring the facts, it's not science, it's faith)
Why is it that anyone can be stupid enough to call science "faith" when it is literally the exact opposite, and I'm still expected to treat them with any shred of respect?
Why is it that anyone can be stupid enough to call faith "science" when it is literally the exact opposite, and I'm still expected to treat them with any shred of respect?
Why is it that anyone can be stupid enough to claim that the purpose of science is to destroy faith, and I'm still expected to treat them with any shred of respect?
To make a long story short (too late!) why the hell is this an argument? Evolution is as concrete and observable as gravity. Faith is the guess of a tiny, insignificant primate's attempt to understand its purpose in existing. The two are unrelated, and should never mix.
YesNo, Two excellent intelligent posts 459 and 460, thank you for your input
HCabret (it's about time i got your name right), yes, you mentioned earlier that gravity happens as does evolution. Regarding Dinos to birds, you must have missed my conversation with mal4mac in post 450 and his article link.
HwoThmb,I'm so impressed by all the "stupid people" you know. Meanwhile, I searched your post for something intelligent. You were correct that there are 31 pages in this thread. You're good at counting. You obviously didn't read any of it though. You asked, Why is it that Darwinists have a mountain of evidence and creationists only have an ancient book? You missed the link that I posted that would show you how flawed your question is. It's called "What You Aren't being Told About Astronomy…Our Created Solar System". Click on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI
Do you mindlessly watch any old stuff that is put in front of you? Do you never take note of what expert critics say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie
I found Phil Plait's article, and read it, in a couple of minutes, so I didn't work that hard. It's a shame that those without any expertise in science are always being taken in by such cranks, and then help spread their nonsense across the internet. "The blind leading the blind" Matthew 15:13-14, Luke 6:39-40.
Melanie, I suggest you start reading a good science column or two, like Phil Plait's.
Let's see what Plait says in his article, it should make anyone realise Spike is not worth watching:
"Last year, I took creationist Spike Psarris to task for misusing the term "evolution" when it comes to astronomy. Psarris has a series of videos out about creationist astronomy. In them, he uses the term evolution to stir emotions in creationists, and not for what it actually means. He then tried to squirm out of that, saying astronomers use the term evolution all the time. I then showed where he was being very deceptive there, trying to distract his readers away from the point that he was seriously misusing the term... Astronomers use it to mean change, usually in individual bodies (stars, planets, galaxies), while biologists use it to talk about change in species."
Now as a trained scientist I know that Plait is right, the term "evolution" is used in very different ways in biology and astronomy. As Spike is equating the two uses of the term, I also know that he is seriously, almost unbelievably, ignorant (or deceitful) about some very basic scientific concepts, and therefore certainly not worth listening to.
You're missing the point. Plait put his foot in his mouth when he complained about Psarris using the word "evolution" and received criticism as a result. Plait was trying to counter that criticism through sarcasm. Rather than arguing rationally against Psarris, he tried to demonize him.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Why are astronomers themselves using the term "evolution"? Can't they think up something else if they mean something so different? And then why is this particular astronomer, who seems to enjoy culture wars, complaining when Psarris uses the technical term?
One of the ideas that Psarris left with me was the notion that if something can't be explained along comes an asteroid to make it all work the way it is supposed to. This sounds to me like saying, "And then a miracle happened." Usually, you need Gods of some sort to effect a miracle, but in this case I can mythologize the unconscious deity Chance as the cause of the miracle. The main deity, Determinism, needs a way out and so calls in his deity of the gaps to solve the problem.