Sciences vs. Religion

[mal4mac]

frost ball…

I haven't mentioned Dawkins much recently, but in the last conversation with Melanie I did mention him a lot.

[HCabret]

Your loss. It's nothing but factual. Facts are facts. Doesn't take anything special except putting it all together in an excellent presentation. It's not post worthy why you "can't read or watch everything" because that choice is expected of most. It's there for those who want to learn what astronomers are not telling us. In fact, that's part of the title. This link starts in the middle for some reason. Please move bottom dot to the beginning of the video… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI

facts are stubborn things. And are also subjective things.

[HCabret]

Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins. In almost every post. Dawkins is your alpha and omega. Not mine. I'll look at your link.

I read your link…okay, birds came from Dinosaurs haha. First they say 10 million years ago. Then they changed their mind to 50 million years ago. They're confused from the get-go. My video explains clearly and precisely why creation is not nearly that old even.

Richard Dawkins is a moron, but that doesn't mean evolution doesn't still occur. Do you know anything about background microwave radiation?

[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

[HCabret]

NCCaberet - posts 435 and 437 cover my thoughts about evolution

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.

[mal4mac]

It appears that only 2 people are able to discuss "What Astronomy is Not Telling Us About
Our Created Solar System"…

Here's a real astronomer, Phil Plait, demolishing Spike's ideas:

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.

[Melanie]

Im convinced. Science is the tool of satan and all believers in satanist evolution should burn. Jesus hates evolution and science and the bible is god-given proof that evolution is false. Our tax-payer funded atheist public school indoctrinators would like our children to believe that dogs came from a rock billions of years ago and that people came from monkeys. Both are false! In fact, dogs did not come from rocks, and monkeys evolved side by side with modern humans, nor did any other life. Life generated through the organic material remnants of super massive stars which had gone nova. But that is godless hogwash! The BIBLE IS PROVEN FACT AND IF YOU ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE GOD AND HIS PLAN YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!

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.

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.

[Melanie]

I don't want to beat my head against a wall...

Aw c'mon, make my day (just joking)

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.

[YesNo]

Here's a real astronomer, Phil Plait, demolishing Spike's ideas:

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.

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".

[YesNo]

You understand natural selection, right? There can be 1000 harmful mutations in a population, but if just one of them is beneficial, that one might help the organism survive and therefore the mutation might stick around longer than the others that got no mutation or got a harmful mutation. The beneficial mutation is selected, naturally, based on the environmental conditions. So that pretty much answers how an "accidental copying" as you put it can create all the complexity we know today. It's a step by step process that builds off of what came before, and over extreme lengths of time, can produce quite complex things like you and me.

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.

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.

[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.

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?

[Hwo Thumb]

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.

[Melanie]

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

[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?.

Do you mindlessly watch any old stuff that is put in front of you? Do you never take note of what expert critics say?

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.

[YesNo]

Do you mindlessly watch any old stuff that is put in front of you? Do you never take note of what expert critics say?

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.

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.