|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
 Posted - 06/26/2003 : 08:37:03
|
|
It's sad how this site doesn't even try to have no biast. everything is critisizing, christians, and there faith. heres somthing new for you all WERE NOT STUPID. you treat us like we are but were not. and as for the question of why do creationists fear evolutioist? We don't at all. I have never feared an evolutionist. (at least not for his views) BUT I do feel sad that someone as intelligent as many of these ppl cant see the lie. What does everyone think about many of the greatest minds in history, not believing in evolution. Such as Albert Einstein, Sir.Issac Newton. Two of the greatest minds ever. If you are gonna doubt what they say there, then you can also doubt all the other things that they have said that you believe.
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
 Posted - 06/26/2003 : 09:35:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by creation88
quote:
It's sad how this site doesn't even try to have no biast. everything is critisizing, christians, and there faith. heres somthing new for you all WERE NOT STUPID. you treat us like we are but were not.
My thought here is that people do not see the difference between religion and science. Many religious people seem to think science is a religion as well, which isn't true. Who is stupid or not is difficult to know; I am sure we all are sometimes...
Not stupid, but only perhaps an incorrect view on science?
quote:
and as for the question of why do creationists fear evolutioist? We don't at all. I have never feared an evolutionist. (at least not for his views) BUT I do feel sad that someone as intelligent as many of these ppl cant see the lie. What does everyone think about many of the greatest minds in history, not believing in evolution. Such as Albert Einstein, Sir.Issac Newton. Two of the greatest minds ever. If you are gonna doubt what they say there, then you can also doubt all the other things that they have said that you believe.
Whether or not Einstein and Newton believed in evolution isn't necessarily important, especially since I'm not sure that there ever were a theory similar to Darwin's, before Darwin. Either way, Einstein and Newton were indeed two of the greatest minds, and even if they didn't believe in evolution (I have no idea whether or not they did), they were physicists, and perhaps they had no more knowledge of biology than the average man at their respective times. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
 |
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 09:45:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have heard from many respected scientists,(although they could have been lieing like they are about evolution itself)and also respected peers and adults, who have all told me, or acknowledged that the sun was shrinking. So in my view, that point still stands.
Tell you what Creation88,
Let's stick to just one part of your post, the shrinking sun. What are YOUR references and sources for a shrinking sun? Name books. Name magazine articles. How about ONE respected scientist that you alluded to in your post. His or her name, credentials and / or university affiliation(s). One, just one.
(:raig |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 09:49:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick:
<snip>
Many religious people seem to think science is a religion as well, which isn't true.
<snip>
I deeply regret to say that I think that you are wrong about this. It is true that "Science" tries very hard NOT to be a religion but on a near-daily occurance, previously held and taught scientific beliefs---some held to be "true" for centuries---are found to be false.
It is the belief-system of science---the dogma---that gives it, too, a religious character. (I have highly-unpleasant first-hand experiences about saying this or that scientific belief is false----albeit to be vindicated decades later.)
Science could abandon its religious character----simply by teaching unproven theories as being UNPROVEN. Ninety percent of astrophysical planetary science believed to be UNQUESTIONABLY TRUE a mere 50 years ago has been shown to be false by the simple expedient of sending out space-probes and INVESTIGATING. Geophysical science does not have a much better record.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 09:54:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
It's sad how this site doesn't even try to have no biast. everything is critisizing, christians, and there faith. heres somthing new for you all WERE NOT STUPID. you treat us like we are but were not. and as for the question of why do creationists fear evolutioist? We don't at all. I have never feared an evolutionist. (at least not for his views) BUT I do feel sad that someone as intelligent as many of these ppl cant see the lie. What does everyone think about many of the greatest minds in history, not believing in evolution. Such as Albert Einstein, Sir.Issac Newton. Two of the greatest minds ever. If you are gonna doubt what they say there, then you can also doubt all the other things that they have said that you believe.
What lie?
References, please.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 10:00:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mespo_man
quote:
I have heard from many respected scientists,(although they could have been lieing like they are about evolution itself)and also respected peers and adults, who have all told me, or acknowledged that the sun was shrinking. So in my view, that point still stands.
Tell you what Creation88,
Let's stick to just one part of your post, the shrinking sun. What are YOUR references and sources for a shrinking sun? Name books. Name magazine articles. How about ONE respected scientist that you alluded to in your post. His or her name, credentials and / or university affiliation(s). One, just one.
(:raig
Hey! Wait a minute, Mespo_man.
The physical equation, it seem to me, is fairly simple: The Sun converts mass into energy (which zooms away) and gets misc. crud (asteroids, comets, dust) coming in. So: It seems that if the mass lost as energy exceeds the mass coming in from space, then the Sun must be shrinking (relative to its mass; not its volume). If the contrary is true (more incoming crud than radiated energy), then the Sun must be growing.
And what human can quantify the amount of mass coming into the Sun? So who can really say whether the despicable creation88 is right or wrong?
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 10:01:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick:
<snip>
Many religious people seem to think science is a religion as well, which isn't true.
<snip>
I deeply regret to say that I think that you are wrong about this. It is true that "Science" tries very hard NOT to be a religion but on a near-daily occurance, previously held and taught scientific beliefs---some held to be "true" for centuries---are found to be false.
It is the belief-system of science---the dogma---that gives it, too, a religious character. (I have highly-unpleasant first-hand experiences about saying this or that scientific belief is false----albeit to be vindicated decades later.)
Science could abandon its religious character----simply by teaching unproven theories as being UNPROVEN. Ninety percent of astrophysical planetary science believed to be UNQUESTIONABLY TRUE a mere 50 years ago has been shown to be false by the simple expedient of sending out space-probes and INVESTIGATING. Geophysical science does not have a much better record.
But science isn't merely a set of facts or a body of knowledge. To say that it is "true" this-or-that is to confuse people, of course. They will see science and religion give different views on the same things, and as long as they don't know why science is different, they will probably believe that science is just like religion. It may appear as a religion. The difference, though, as I see it, is that the scientific method is self correcting and ready to change its views, where religion rarely or never is.
As for education, you're right, they must be much more clear on what theories are not yet proven and which ones are, and how, etc. And also explain that "truths" in science are temporary until a better one comes up. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Phobos
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 10:04:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by creation88
It's sad how this site doesn't even try to have no biast. everything is critisizing, christians, and there faith.
I don't criticize Christianity. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 10:23:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick:
But science isn't merely a set of facts or a body of knowledge. To say that it is "true" this-or-that is to confuse people, of course. They will see science and religion give different views on the same things, and as long as they don't know why science is different, they will probably believe that science is just like religion. It may appear as a religion. The difference, though, as I see it, is that the scientific method is self correcting and ready to change its views, where religion rarely or never is.
The sciences that I've mentioned have a very good record of admitting that they don't know very much---as well, of course, as carefully identifying those things that are unambigously known.
Psuedo-sciences, where absolutely-certain knowledge is scarce but which abound with theories touted as "fact", are too many and allowed far too much latitude.
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick:
As for education, you're right, they must be much more clear on what theories are not yet proven and which ones are, and how, etc. And also explain that "truths" in science are temporary until a better one comes up.
However: there is a thread over in the Social Science forum that is highly critical of [U.S.] education; in particular, of the absymal quality of science and mathematics teachers. As in: Utterly UNqualified. Why, oh why, do the several States allow them to "teach" something that they have NO understanding whatsoever about?
Better, I say, to have no course than one whose "teacher" spends discussing contentless hours of feel-good stuff followed by handing out good grades.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 11:12:40 [Permalink]
|
Creation88 wrote:quote:
It's sad how this site doesn't even try to have no biast. everything is critisizing, christians, and there faith.
I'm not criticizing Christians or their faith, I'm criticizing you and other Creationists. And I'm criticizing you because you're thumbing your nose at my lack of agreement with you, which you presumed many of us would share.quote:
What does everyone think about many of the greatest minds in history, not believing in evolution. Such as Albert Einstein, Sir.Issac Newton. Two of the greatest minds ever. If you are gonna doubt what they say there, then you can also doubt all the other things that they have said that you believe.
Let's see, if I've done my math correctly, Newton died 82 years before Darwin was even born. And what makes you think Einstein didn't believe in evolution? Have you fallen for the lies about him supposedly believing in the standard Christian God?
Doesn't matter, it's a standard "argument from authority." You really do need to take that logic class.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 11:13:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's sad how this site doesn't even try to have no biast. everything is critisizing, christians, and there faith. heres somthing new for you all WERE NOT STUPID.
creation88 in case you haven't figured this out yet, this is a skeptics site. That means we are skeptical and critical of claims for which there is no evidence for. This means we are skeptical and critical of all religions, just like we are skeptical of aliens visiting Earth and abducting farmer Joe and probing his anus. Just like we are skeptical of astrologers, psychics, faith healers, magic healing bracelets, and the list goes on. We are skeptical and critical of all of these things and many more because they make claims for which there is no evidence for. Christianity is just another one of those things.
quote:
BUT I do feel sad that someone as intelligent as many of these ppl cant see the lie.
Sorry but that's where the evidence is at and the data doesn't lie, only people lie. If there was no evidence for the theory of evolution I would reject it out of hand, but there is arguably more evidence for the theory of evolution than any other theory in science.
quote:
What does everyone think about many of the greatest minds in history, not believing in evolution.
Yawn, an argument from authority caries about as much weight as an argument from ignorance. Let's see, how many great minds can you name since 1900 that didn't accept the theory of evolution? When the argument was made by Darwin & Wallace the evidence he presented swayed the great minds of his time just like the evidence continues to sway the great minds of today.
quote:
Such as Albert Einstein, Sir.Issac Newton.
Another lie, Einstein accepted the theory of evolution and also was an atheist or at most a deist. Newton lived from 1642 to 1727 long before evolutionary data was being accumulated, even before the world was being explored in mass and long before a great increase in knowledge of biological diversity began. Something Darwin and his contemporaries had readily available by mid 19th century.
So yes I will doubt what Newton had to say about biology and evolution considering his limited set of data to work with. Einstein on the other hand I don't have to doubt on this issue since he and I are in agreement.
Edited for grammar fix |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 06/26/2003 11:13:47 |
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 16:48:58 [Permalink]
|
| I'm still waiting for this evidence for Creation. No not flimsy half-baked ill-informed arguments against evolution, Evidence for creation, apparently you have a lot of it. |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2003 : 21:06:36 [Permalink]
|
Well, it would have been difficult for Newton to evaluate evolution and either be for it or against it, considering he died over a hundred or so years before Charles Darwin developed his theory. Be kinda like Newton also not believing in Einstienian realitivity.....
As for Einstein, what makes you think he didn't accept the premise of evolutionary theory. He did have qualms with certain aspects of quantum mechanics ( which is ironic , considering how important some of his work was in the development of the quantum theory.). I believe his objection came in the form of , "God doesn't play dice with the universe." I also remembering him being quoted as saying that his reluctance to embrace that theory was the largest mistake of his life. On the other hand, I don't remember him ever saying much about evolution. |
|
|
|
Jimmy_Reynolds
New Member
USA
47 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 16:34:59 [Permalink]
|
Creation 88, I'm not suggesting that this refutes the validity of creationism, or that sincerely held beliefs should be abandoned in the face of opposition; but you are aware, are you not, that the prevalence of creationist belief in this country is a great source of rhetorical ammunition for our enemies overseas?
When Europeans or Arabs or others make disparaging generalizations about the United States (a fallacy in and of itself) they almost invariably mention creationist influence as evidence that Americans are backward, ignorant, and subservient to authority.
A professor visting from Germany recently expressed the opinion that my job must be hopeless since "practically all of your students believe in creationism."
I quickly corrected him, since the number is nowhere near that high, but his statement reflects the common perception in Europe even among well-informed people.
This is a matter of life and death, because terrorists (ironically, creationists themselves in most cases)use these characterizations to gain support for their attacks on Americans, or at least to blunt the reaction and encourage neutrality.
The alleged American penchant for creationism is often cited in support of moral equivalency claims; that there is no difference between us and the medievalist terrorists.
Indeed, creationist Kent Hovind has gone even farther in doing their work for them by openly endorsing 9-11 conspiracy theories, thereby excusing the terrorists completely.
If there is the barest chance that you are not sincere, you should be aware that this superstitious pretense, no matter how profitable socially or financially, is not worth what it is costing us in lost potential, degraded intellect, wasted resources, and the aid and comfort it provides our enemies through the scorn it invites from the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
LordofEntropy
Skeptic Friend
USA
85 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2003 : 17:03:54 [Permalink]
|
As for the greatly flawed creationist idiotic tidbit 'The suns shrinks 5 blah blah blah, it would have enveloped the earth some blah blah blah years ago; making evolution impossible'.
That statement is wrongly assuming a constant rate, which isn't the case, some basic cosmology and physics addresses that. Stars begin to collapse as they spend their fuel. The smaller they get, the faster they collapse. So the rate our sun collapses now can not be extrapolated out linearly(except by creationists); it was collapsing much slower billions of years ago.
Creationist need to take a lesson from Sherlock Holmes; Make your conclusion fit the facts, don't make the facts fit your conclusion.
|
Entropy just isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
