Anything with PF in the background is good, even Mis South Carolina. 'Guess growing up with it helps.
My comment: I doubt Carl used "a" next to "insignificant" - it ruined the whole experience. One thumb up for PF, one thumb down for the author not using copy/paste. I rate this: Osam... South Africa.
Well, everything we see here is knowledge attained through the use of Satan's science, and is a lie according to the knowledgeable men of 200 AD, and so many religious groups today.
After all in 200 AD they were using some pretty sophisticated instrumentation themselves to probe the universe which stretched from the horizon to where they were standing at the time. They had Alcohol, Opium, and the reading of the internal organs of freshly slaughtered Sheep.
They truly were the wisest men that the world has ever produced, and thankfully they wrote down a great deal of their drug induced hallucinations in the good book, so that we can know that all science is bunk. This is why no one of a religious nature ever visits a hospital, or drives a car, or watches TV, or uses a computer, etc, where the demon sciences reigns supreme.
I wonder how I should code that algorithm? Oh wait, where is that goat?
pod...well spoken, as usual. off the mark, as not so usual. Not being a holy roller, but also believing in something afterward, I find no conflict with what Sagan has said. He was a brilliant interpreter of the awesomeness of our universe, being able to bring the busy, distracted, and perhaps not highly technical public, comprehensible views of the incomprehensible universe we inhabit. Yea Carl ! Yea us folks !
chaz - Well perhaps I'm a little oversensitive to this subject of science AS a new foundation for religion. I have been in the sciences all my life, and until about 10 years ago all I heard from religious groups was how I was joining with Satan in the sciences. It is difficult for me to forgive all of the murder and hatred that all discoverers, and enlightened men have undergone under the auspices of the religious mind throughout human history.
I hope this gets posted in the right place...long string here.
Pod....why you are even thinking of forgiving what has happened at other times in other circumstances is puzzling. You weren't there, and if you had been, you would have been the intelligentia of the time...not a thinker of today. It's not a "to forgive" deal. It's a critique of history...like monday morning quarterbacking.
Many have decried the killings in the name of this or that god. Early enlightened life was not that enlightened, and life was not valued at the same level as today in the US. Merely step into Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia...and so many other similarly inclined cultures, and you will find life hardly valued at all (not so, however, amongst the western enamored leadership or these areas).
It was what it was, and we all wish it were different...but those were "o tempus, o mores"...the times, and the customs....like we have now,but different. Can't get there from here, is my thought...different life, then.
For me, there is no barrier between Darwin and intelligent design...it's a matter of semantics. And Darwin provides the physical evidence...the rest is faith, for those who can't explain why the Big Bang happened,and what existed just before then.
This is not unlike past times...it is is not an issue of "to forgive", but of being able to see things through the spectacles of those who live at that time. They weren't like US folks then...they were like Sunni's, Shia's, today. Not good....passionate, but not good...but they didn't know it (as the warring islamics of today).
Chaz - Can you see that 'intelligent design' could be as offensive to a scientific mind as 'evolution' is to the 'religious' mind? And the past of religious behavior is closely linked to present behavior as you have stated. It is of concern to those of us who will face crucifixion when the faithful reach the next pinnacle of their desires.
Beliefs drive actions.
The beliefs are unchanged, so why should there be any change in actions?
I really haven't adopted the term "intelligent design" because it is sort of new on the discussion platform...but it seems to be the go-to term that denotes a belief in something before the big bang...and so there I am, believing in something before the so-called spontaneous creation of all life. Spontaneous...yeah....right. An instant of nothingness followed by the collision of...or the production of...well, something...a bunch of rocks colliding and later a rock grows leaves, then gills, then feathers, then...oh well.....sorry...it just doesn't work for me scientifically or logically.
I am not offended by your notions...I simply believe we end up at a common finality. You should not be offended by my notions...yours don't offend me. No magic wands or cutesy winged angels flitting around. Just a grown-up view of where we are and how things got started.
Enough !
Canadaduck...science proves nothing about god...sheesh....it has a hard time proving much about our physical surroundings, much less life.
chaz, did I miss something in the news this morning? Since when do the US value life?
The latest status I am aware of is that the US invade other countries for resources (not that this works terribly well...) and obscure beliefs of their president.
Yeah, I was about to say, i dont have a problem with the rest of your statement because that of course is your opinion and you hold the right to express it, but claiming (or even stating) that the US values life today, and that the middle east does not (which essentially is what you said even if not word for word) is the most unfounded BS ever.... yes there is war in the middle east, but the peace time countries there have a far lower murder rate than the US - saudi arabia for example, and many other places. Ok iran/iraq/israel/palestine have deaths every day, but during a time of war that is surely to be expected?? (terrible though it is)... And i'm quite sure than when the US has been at war people died and human life wasn't 'valued' as much... so please, keep statements like that to yourself or make it clearer that they are opinions only. The majority of people in the middle east follow the Qu'ran and believe fervently in the sanctity of human life, more so than in the US. It's only the extremists you see every day on CNN or whatever that give you that impression. No offense meant to you personally, by the way.
HAH ! English majors never get good jobs, but they do great resume's. Did I mention, "recovering", meaning four years of academic rehab leading to an MBA and a number of other things...including a great comfortability with our native tongue (OK, forget the erotic inferences from the "tongue" allusion).
Canadaduck....already replied...soooooooooo many threads, but you are so available to review them all. Where do you get the time?
Risking here some level of acceptability at this site, I will repeat....our north border barker, our hockey huckster, our frigid friend, our snow-shoed shouter, our canadaduckster, our wannabe whiner...gawd...there's no end to it...he is, in fact, fun to follow...but hardly enlightening. Bet me this, Canuck...the Red Sox win the east (despite a very good but underachieving
Totonto team...which should have been in the race), the Patriots win their division....and after the Sox win, you will admit that I am the superior poster. Failing the first test, I will retire from the forefront, having never quite arrived there in the first place.
In the incredibly unlikelyhood of failing at the second test,I will no longer be cogent anyway.
But winning at the first...your concession is that 'Chaz is a superior poster...winning at the second (Patriots,that is)....your concession is to describe your dream date with Condoleeza Rice. ..your hopes, your fantasies, your activities that compensate for her rejection of your attention. Or suffer the judgements of a cold and disimpassioned glumbert jury.
Chaaaazzzz my good man you did not just talk trash about the much (not feared) crash and burn Red Sox.
OMG LOL (we) will slip and slide, yet (we)shall be there when october cometh. toronto on the other hand being nine games out wont!!! and when i say we you know of whom i speak.
p.s
my father became a English Major and recived a masters attending s.u.n.y at Plattsburg at the age of 59. i wrote him letters and he would send them back corrected in red marker , alot of red marker. he tought English as a second language. it took him all over the world and barely made a living doing so.
but he loved to travel. lol :) its a Nobel skill , methinks at least.
Oh No.... Carl Sagan! One of the most hated men in the religious world. I really think Cosmos really freaked out the Holy Rollers at the time. The rest of us just sat in wonder and enjoyed it throughly.
Thanks, Carl. I'll be seeing you amongst the stars some day.
Wow, I saw strings and branes in there, maybe even a few extra dimensions as well. We are so insignificant in our observed universe! Finally a vid I can relate to.
The vast distnces represented in this video, may be a moot point.....if the theoretical principles of "wormholes" or such phenomena are explored/proven.
If sometime in the human races future, such anomalies are concretly established, then travelling a "parsec" would be akin to going to the corner store for a pack of smokes and a paper.
I think Stephen Hawking has already explored this theory.
Been a while, since I read "A Brief History Of Time."
In either case, none of us will be around to see if/when it does become a FACT.
C- We would be there already if not for the baser instincts of humanity. I have always wondered about the significance of a 2 AM bar fight. Does it really serve mankind well, and how important is it that it needs to take place over, and over again?
A conjecture - The real reason that the bar fight takes place is that reality is a daunting and extreme journey. Not many can take the ego crushing voyage into the insignificance of their own life. On the journey people usually break into two groups, the curious who want to go as far as they can, and their ego be damned, and all the rest who try to to deny the reality their nearly insignificant existence by using drugs, religion or both to drown it out.
If they only knew the wonders and awareness that the hard sciences can bring. But it requires a open and unbiased mind to REALLY GO TO THE EDGE. This was the point that Carl was always trying to make.
canuck, are you so sure we wont be around? Some theories have worm holes being the ultimate time travel vehicle, you could at anytime get a visit from your progeny! Who then could take you back to an earlier time, providing you with all the winning lotto numbers and better yet, the exact time that glumbert puts up new videos so you can exclusively be first poster on every single one!
pod...always interested in your comments. Here....sooooo passionate. Hope we'll see more development towards that end. At present, research on the needed technologies are in some closet while we spend trillions on new weaponry...GO RED SOX...sort of a placebo for (local) humanity, I think.
Just my opinion but after listening to PF and watching this I think it's the sheer immeasurable scale of the universe that has the religious nuts backing into their shells unable to comprehend.
Science helped us discover the true enormity of what surrounds us, and consequently tells us how massively insignificant we are. Guess the bible bashers don't like it.
'Tongue tied and twisted just an earth bound misfit' - great lyrics
I agree with that also - a very good point. Alot of religious people don't seem to like the scientific view of the planet because it makes our race an accident, an insignificant smudge on a speck of dust floating in a massive vaccuum... they like to think we are god's chosen race and therefore very, very special.... pfffff
ok, so this obviously proves that there is a single (male) God. That created all of this, to give life to just one planet. Where he knocked up a virgin to give birth to his male son. who died for our sins... and 2k years over 60 of the world's population haven't even heard of him. Dude faith is definately the opium of the masses.
Guten abend, fellow Glumberters!
Please - Vot is ze "coner" of vich zis man Sagan speaks?
Zis vos schonlich und ein most interesting video. I vish to congratulate ze cameraman. He must haf had tales to tel ven he came back down!
Ze last time I haf seen zes shapes and colours vos ven I vos attacked by ein herd von jellyfishes vile schwimming mit Albert Speer near Corsica in 1934. Zey ver vicious beasts mit huge tentacles und left me tingling in ein sore vay in ze genital area for two days.
Ze von ozzer occasion I haf seen such sights vos after Mengele gave me ein little pill at ein cocktail party in Dresden. Laugh? Ve laughed all night like geese!
Vell done Glumbert! Anysink you do zat make Herr Rabz put sings in perspective is to be applauded.
I await and am interested in the Holy perspective from the religious minds. Do they dare comment, or are they slaughtering a goat to divine the correct response?
Ok kids, space is FUCKING boring all it is is numbers that dont end and extend and gasses and radiation fucking boring, and no limits whats so ever it just goes and goes and goes and goes. K gotta go to work! TTYL
gay, its never ending, soon as they find something big they find something a trillion times bigger, just repeat that never ending. id worry about how many different kinds of tits are here on earth or who has a greater cock than me. or some shit. none of that out there
....astounding....just one after another of insightful, well ordered, intelligently phrased, instructive, almost prophetic, observations from our ass, that is, ace (like there's a difference here). I can not possibly express my true feelings on the stunningly blighted comments this vacuous slug posts.
Hmmm. Run that by me again. How does the fact that we find a bigger and bigger and more wonderful universe "scare" the religious folks? Most in fact embrace it as we continue to merely scratch the surface of something incredible. The more we find, the more respected scientists turn to "creator" theories. In fact, there's a scientific traffic jam on the road to creationsim. Few travel the road the other way.
WTF though, canuck and others must know more than the thousands of PhD scientists that have studied this first hand for decades and made an informed decision to choose "creator" as the most likely reason for existence. Canuck's sources afterall are more reliable and trustworthy.
yes unbelieveable which brings (me) right back to ......I SEE GOD.... this is my personal belief and i dont expect any one to stop drop and roll what ever thier doing and follow me in this .
i do believe God created the ALL AND EVERTHING. but i also believe it wasnt
a star fart ago. but many star farts ago. let alone 6 to 10 thousand years ago.(once again my opinion) backed up by well over 90% of the people who work or have worked in this field, alive and dead.and not under the threat of death from the Church.
a star fart being one hundred billion years in time . this measurement is all scientific of cource. in the wink of a super nova, the burp of a Quasar or in the time of a star fart.
when it all gets so overwhelming ,let go let God baby.
i actually agree with what you are saying here randal, i use to be more on the religous side of things that is until i started seeing the more scientific part of it. at this point in my life i am torn between both sides, b/c though science explains a lot about the universe and how a lot of thigs happen, they can never explain the miraculous events that take place. i have seen things no one that i know has ever seen, not even the elders. these things that i have seen and been through are the reasons why i can never stop believing in god. just like you this is just my opinion and i'm not trying to push this on anyone, but when you go through life constantly seeing things that can called miraculous at a very young age it's hard not to believe. i guess it's like they say "seeing is believing."
damn traveling about the universe, while listening to pink floyd.... perspective on the vastness of the universe..... maybe the most awe inspiring video on glumbert..... really clicks with me.......
creation is not against science. i hear too many people saying that. science is good. fantastic. what is bad is science mixed in with HUGE false assumptions. the end result is evolution. pop-science. hi-jacked science.
We have discussed before, so you know I am not too much of a idiot. Why would you accept some things science has to offer, and not others? What part of evolution is against the word of God?
Goodshorts-good call.
Read some of these posts and you will see a blind faith in completely untestable matters.
Science cannot help but arrive at metaphysical places but it cannot address them. Size and scope of the universe, formation of stars, formation of planets, Big Bang hypothesis...none of these things are testable or observable. But, with faith in scientists, they are spoken of with the same confidence that leads one to the assurity of gravity. Sad, really. I acknowledge that what I believe is just that: based on faith.
(I encourage anyone to read about time dialtion and its application to the universe.)
You are right...creationism is not "against" science. Thousands of Ph.D's around the world have had their faith affirmed in science. Irreducible complexity, lack of fossil evidence, infomation science...the list goes on.
Someone above suggested Darwin supplied physical evidence (presumably for his evolutionary hypothesis). Again, very sad. Enormous lack of understanding of what Darwin observed and how much of it has been turned on its head.
Darwinian evolution has about as much supportive evidence as UFOs. It is really now a religion.
But, science and religion have their adherents.
Chumpstream would you care to qualify your statement / opinion that Darwinian theory of evolution has as much evidence in it's favour as UFOs studies do?
I'm interested in how you come to hold that opinion (for that is all it is - not fact), as well as the evidence you base it on
Alternatively, let's do slight switch of this opinion and suggest that Creationism has more in common with UFO studies than Darwinian evolutionary theory does...
I would just like to say that Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't wipe out the idea of god (i'm a science person rather than a religious person but i like to be mindful of both sides as often as possible)... Darwin didn't actually suggest how life came to be in the first place, just how things developed from there.
If you're arguing about god creating the universe then, technically, evolution has nothing to do with it - its a whole new kettle of fish, so to speak.
The big bang is what you should be arguing about - a spontaneous event sparked by pressure and maths stuff (lol i dont know the details only GCSE physics 2 years ago...) But not evolution :)
Chumpstream - once again making wildly incorrect and poorly thought through statements based on nothing more than your own opinions.
Evolution as religion hey? My, my you are getting a little desperate now aren't you...
Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion.
Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).
Religions describe the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Evolution describes only our biological background relative to present and recent human environments.
Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.
Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.
Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not. Evolution has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people, such as Thomas Henry Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and E. O. Wilson (Ruse 2000), but their view, although based on evolution, is not the science of evolution; it goes beyond that.
Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.
Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.
How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.
Evolution may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity. Calling evolution a religion makes religion effectively meaningless.
Evolutionary theory has been used as a basis for studying and speculating about the biological basis for morals and religious attitudes (Sober and Wilson 1998).
Studying religion, though, does not make the study a religion.
Using evolution to study the origins of religious attitudes does not make evolution a religion any more than using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts makes archaeology a religion.
Evolution as religion has been rejected by the courts:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
The court cases Epperson v. Arkansas, Willoughby v. Stever, and Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist. are cited as precedent (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education 1982).
Seriously Chumpy - your lack of credibility is... incredible
You never seem to post your thoughts without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge
i doubt that science is incapable of explaining important issues. our perception of sciences' power to reveal, is limited by our knowledge. that point is consistently proven with our expansion of what we discover through science.
the video is enlightening because it effectively creates an emotional wonderment for learning, and the universe in which we dwell. it was well made in that sense, to me anyway.
Good point, Steve
For the first half of the century, Darwinian evolution suggested a certain heirarchy of development...from "simple" one celled organism up to "complex" man. However, the idea of simplicity as a root or baseline of early life can no longer be accepted; single-celled life has more complexity than any computer we could even conceive.
The more we observe through science, the more humble we should become. It is not the case, though.
This universe does not care for a couple organisms on a planet in a rather insignificant solar system. Assuming that there is a superpower that created you and cares for you is a gross overestimation of your person.
Streamlined - "Darwinian evolution has about as much supportive evidence as UFOs. It is really now a religion". I am guessing that you studied biology somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon line, right?
There are a raft of articles that address the supposed irreducible complexity arguments of creationists. I am talking about peer reviewed articles, not bible club newsletter articles.
Science cannot answer the big questions of how the universe started, or what existed before that. But neither can anyone point to their religion for answers to such questions. As you state, your belief is based on your faith. By definition your beliefs do not have any provable basis, and stem from your own personal view of the world. It impossible to prove the basis of your faith to anyone, so stop wasting your breath and our time in trying to convince anyone that you faith is correct. If you are content to believe that you have the answer, that is wonderful for you. Myself, I recognize that science does not have the answers, - yet. But it is going forward, exploring the universe. Religion and faith offers only a static, safe, pat "answer" for those too lazy, frightened, or ignorant to actually try and view the universe.
What is "irreducible complexity"? Going into details you don't understand?
Amino acids form themselfs if you have an earth like environment. Anything beyond that takes too long to obseve in a human life span, actually takes longer than anything resembling civilisation existed.
Amino acids don't do that, by the way.
Long ago refuted as original conditions are disputed.
Second, even if they did, you have a monster hurdle to go from big protein to life. In fact, a virtually impossible hurdle.
Yeah right, likely he thinks this video here shows kind of a sponge and he wonders why people think a bathing implement is cool just because someone plays Pink Floyd in the background.
It's late, and I am on my third wine...so I have the final answer to all belief systems (remarkable how that can happen under these circumstances, eh?).
Darwinism, creationism, big bang theory.....Who gives a crap, now pass me a beer.
I don't think we will solve the great mysteries of life on Glumbert. Wait, Canuck's word is gold. Canuck, how did we come into the world as we now know it?
Gros Gott!!
Mein fellow Glumberters - zer is only von philosophical kvestion vorth asking, und here it is.
Should I kill meinself or not? In ozzer vords, shit or get off the pot, as you Americans say!
Und as ein supplementary, should I first kill Herr Rabz?
You are kvite right Herr Skidmarks!
Vith Glumbert, ein bottle von Schnapps, ein few dusky maidens fur ze hand relief und ein picture of Herr Rabz on ze vall to throw darts at - vot more could ein person vish for!!??
IRONY - Definition: Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is a conservative Republican who has voted against gay marriage and opposes hate crimes legislation that would extend special protections to gay and lesbian crime victims.
Great to hear the lively debate.
Here are some basics that need to be understood before going forward:
1) The scientific method relies 100% on observability and testability. (Darwinian evolution and mathematical models provide neither.) Sciences' strengths and limitations are in the method.
2) Peer review is not the panacea many think it is. FYI- many creationsists have published in peer reviewed journals. (Ignorance of that fact is no excuse.) What good is peer reviewing if one is preaching to the choir? Often times the science is good but the conclusions differ from the "peers'" current ideology and therefore does not get published. I know this from first hand experience.
3) The fossil record stands in stark contrast to what Darwinian evolution predicts. (See Burgess Shale)
4) Irreducible complexity does not stand alone as an argument but does shut the door on people like Richard Dawkins who accept Darwin's model without any support.
5) Up until the last 125 years or so, western scientists were also very religious. There is no reason one contradicts the other.
6) Because one argues against a particular point does not necessarily mean he is in favor of the opposite. (Logic 101). Castigating someone for anti-Evolutionary positions as one who is doing so only on religious grounds makes you (whoever you are) less than intelligent. Even less intelligent are those who believe that to reject Darwin, one must be from the South.
7) Anyone...please name ONE, just ONE, proven Darwinian fact.
it would take less faith to believe in what i see with my own eyes and what most learned Scientist's have explored reseasched and Documented in no less then 400 years .
then say a book that was written over 2000 years ago , and touched up many tmes over since .
perhaps i have read some text from the disciples of the one true great Chipmunk.
in the books of Alvin,Theodore and Simon .
you may find what you seek there my child. go now and never return.
go and gather the nuts of life and please dont pick those on Glumbert for they are the forbidden nuts.
Here are some more basics to balance those suggested above:
The use of the scientific method relies 100% on observability and testability - this is so we have proof and can justifiably claim good science has been carried out.
Now given that evolution began millions of years ago – observability is impossible. Testability (dating etc) IS possible but creationists will dispute this as it tends not to help their argument.
In fact the Creationist view often disputes the veracity of many claims made by scientific methods and proposed methods of its own that tend not to stand up to peer review. It is part of a the creping PR campaign on behalf of the creationist movement that is steadily gaining traction across the US
Peer review IS held in high regard and those who may have first hand experience, but who imply discredit to the peer review process, have normally performed badly when held to account. Those creationists who HAVE published in peer reviewed journals may well not have been publishing creationist papers and hence would have been using good scientific methods. Alternatively they may have been publishing Creationist literature in journals with a Creationist agenda so we must be careful of those who say that Creationism is becoming widely accepted by scientists in general. It is not.
We must also be clear that The Darwinian Theory of Evolution is exactly that - it IS a theory.
However it is a theory we really CAN use in order to create a far more accurate framework on which to build up and assimilate a very complex puzzle that is life.
In other words it is the best that human kind has come up with thus far. Creationism can offer nothing approaching the depth of accurate analysis and 'best available knowledge' - this statement is crucial because 'best available knowledge' assumes a desire to find out more.
Creationism wishes to shut the book on the quest for knowledge and provide an answer NOW.
Evolution has been proven as much as gravity, thermodynamics, erosion or continental shift is. However, proponents of evolutionary theory are often told "we have not witnessed evolution taking place, thus it cannot be proven". Very little in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty apart from death and taxes. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. And that is where this thing called good science can come in
In the case of evolution, huge data fields exist from diverse sources and each new piece of evidence helps tests the rest - building up further our image of this 'tree of life'
1. All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
2. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
3. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
4. Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
5. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
We also see the the attempted use of creationist science to disprove peer acknowledged factual science. The peer review process is often seen in a bad light by those who espouse creationism primarily because true scientists tend (in the main) tend to view creationism with some skepticism. This is due to the lack of empirical scientific data to support the claim for Creationism.
Examples would be the cretaceous-tertiary extinction event which has been measured at 65.5m years ago. It is characterised by a line of Iridium (the most corrosion resistant of all the elements) and can clearly be seen in rock patterns the world over and (using scientific methods and knowledge gleaned from analysing meteor samples) is deemed to have been deposited by a major meteor which caused a mass extinction event globally.
One creationist view is that the dinosaurs died in a flood - this is easily explained by the fact that MANY sedimentary deposits (by definition water borne) will obviously build up large numbers of fossil deposits over time. Animals drown. Water tends to be found in specific areas. Hence the concentration of fossils in sedimentary areas.
Creationists trend not to focus on the KT Line too much, nor on the millions of years of fossil deposits found prior to and after the KT Line
Techtonic plate movement allows us to see the divergence of species over time – with fossils found to have been evolving away from the forms they took when these land masses were connected.
Those who claim that scientists USED to be very religious… hmmm are they in essence advocating a return to days of yore when science was (in comparison to the information age we find ourselves in now) relatively slow moving? Or are they simply bringing in a moot argument as many more people were also intensely religious outside scientific circles.
The advent of decent education tended to allow those who undertook to learn, to begin to question the concept of religion ergo a drop in numbers of highly religious people generally.
That science has advanced so much in the last 175 years is almost certainly BECAUSE scientists began to look outside the realms of religion in order to explain the world and universe – this quest should continue and should not see us, as a species, begin to regress.
My main worry is that scientists today tend NOT to even debate the issue as it carries such little credibility – they wish not to get involved in such politically charged issues.
This is worrying and it is dangerous.
This then leads Creationists to easily begin to sell the idea in to those sections of population predisposed to wanting an answer to their existence but not wanting to work too hard for it. In many cases these more radicalised believers may not be the sharpest knives int eh drawer, they may be somewhat mentally pliable. Nonetheless to them it gains credence on the basis of poor science and that theory then becomes an acknowledged fact. It’s scary
Whilst Evolution Theory is also a theory – it is a much more elegant solution than that posed by Creationism which uses faith to answer those questions that its own ‘science’ cannot.
Evolutionary theory is not even close to being finished yet – and THAT is its beauty.
It is a jigsaw puzzle that we as a race imho have a duty to attempt to put together piece by piece, using factual, decent science to do so. Our knowledge base increases each year and will help us answer questions even as more are posed.
To use Creationsim to explain away these questions seems to hand over responsibility. It takes bravery to try learn things we don’t understand. It takes blind faith to simply believe.
"Those who claim that scientists USED to be very religious… hmmm are they in essence advocating a return to days of yore "
Science in the days of extreme religion had to be hidden if done at all at the risk of the Learned Men being executed by Gods law. In fact religion was worn by most of these men a rhetorical armor against persecution. They feared for their lives, to even speak that the earth was not the center of the universe, etc.
The creationists wish to link to science by perverting the truth, because science may one day become a more accepted form of human philosophy, and thus reduce the power of the religious sector. Religion is the easy way out of the reality debate. The religious extremists who desire Theocracy for all, are seeking power. Extremist religion has caused a technological collapse of every society in which it is applied.
Thank you, Pod...for the irrelevance of your article.
I have restricted my question to western science and the past...you addressed neither, but did show your willingness to find anything to buttress your ignorance. Yep...western civilization--just like Saddam's regime.
At this point, pods, you are making a fool of yourself.
What sort of hoops are you trying to get me to jump through in order to try and compare gravity to evolution. You are certainly not addressing evolution's weaknesses, only playing a semantics game we used to play in the 8th grade. ("Prove" you are here, type thing) But I will sum up the obvious: Gravity is observed (remember it is a phenomenon observed by its effects...like wind) and tested. You are still devoid of a refutation.
It is like asking me to prove you to be a dunce and all I have are your posts...which, I suppose, are the effects of your duncedom.
Thank you.
You make so many of my points...let me illustrate.
First dating methods is NOT testing. If one scientist gets a result with dating method (A), while another scientist gets a different result with dating method (B), which one is most reliable? In order to accept certain dating methods, one must first accept the assumptions of those methods. The assumptions, of which, are UNTESTABLE. The refutations of these methods and results are on scientific grounds.
Second...please read what I wrote about peer review so that you don't create strawmen to defend the indefensible. By the way, what scientific methods do creationists use. What is the difference in a creationist bias and a materialist bias? I assume we should toss out the last 1000 years of western science since a significant numer of those scientists were creationists.
Darwinian Evolution does not rise to theory status...it is a hypothesis. You cannot explain the difference.
You have uttered absurdity before, but have outdone yourself with the following: "Evolution has been proven as much as gravity, thermodynamics, erosion or continental shift is." You then followed it up with, "...it cannot be proven." Just because you wish it so, doesn't make it so.
Regarding your points:
1. Yes
2. No we do not. We infer it. Or, as I like to say, "We make it up." Common decent is inferred, not observed.
3. Absolutely, unequivocally FALSE. You are very much in the dark here. Morphology, biochemically and genetically...evolution vis a vis random mutations, etc is confounded routinely, by atheist scientists, by the way.
4. You find ZERO transitional forms in the fossil record. Those that are supposed to be, are currently in great dispute. Name one. (For those following along--remember that millions upon millions of transitional forms would have to be seen to justify believing in molecules-to-man evolution.)
5. No they ABSOLUTELY do not. Read about the Cambrian Explosion. Rudimentary or vestigial characters do not support Darwinian evolution.
I am glad you brought up a line of argumentation about what is supposed to have happened 65.5m years ago. You are referencing highly contested data that is at best, speculative. Your language of certitude undercuts what is actually being done. I suggest some research on your part...a lot of it...into reliability of dating methods, assumptions about mass extinctions of dinosaurs, and what you beleive about tectonic plate movement.
You are very wrong about how we arrived today at a staunchly materialist scientist versus a religious scientist. You should read about the Rennaisance and the Enlightenment and what happened to scientists then. (Speed of information does not mean days of yore were primitive.)
So, as evolutionary hypothesizing continues as an elegant explanation of life (remember: life came from non-life (never ever been observed and no plausible mechanism suggested), and random mutations that favored the existence of the next generation have lead us to where we are now (key word: random)) we are left with my original question...name ONE, just ONE, proven Darwinian fact. (Gravity: observable, testable. Thermodynamic laws: observable, testable. Erosion: likewise. Darwinian Evolution: Neither and therefore should be relegated to philosophy class.)
The basic problems when arguing with creationists are: a) No facts will be accepted unless they are stated in THE BOOK. b) No comprehension of scale. c) If you don't accept my harebrained theory then yours is evil!
The universe unfortunately is so fucking large that everything is likely to have happened somewhere. The fact that we can have this argument here is simply due to life having evolved on this planet. There is nothing special about this place or the beings on this planet, it is just something that statistically had to happen.
Proof: As I fell from the tree, I cried, "God help meeeeeeeeee! (oof)" QED.
Commenting on the both #3's above: The "Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species" classification system is undergoing a re-work based on DNA. What once (up until last year) was "proven" to be neighbors on the biological family tree, now aren't even living in the same forest. The classification headings of Kingdom and Phylum have been allowed to stand, as was "bigger than a breadbox."
F(Gravity)= Mass (1) X Mass (2)/ dd
Go test earth's gravity on your own...you will, over and over and over again, get the same results. Test and re-test.
That is the Effect of gravity. Much like the origin of species is the effect of evolution. I will say it again prove gravity, do not offer what you think gravity is ,offer facts.
Thank you Stream, for the irrelevance of your High School formula. I have restricted my question to the proof of Gravity you have not addressed it at all, but did show your willingness to find anything to buttress your ignorance.
Pods- do you have a point? Please read the sentence after the formula. Or, got throw a rock in the air and watch it return to the earth in a manner expressed in the formula.
"origin of species is the effect of evolution"? Sure about that, doctor?
I know there must be something more than this to your argument(s).
If you want intelligent discussion, feign intelligence for this thread's sake.
You state that you believe in Gravity. Is it because you have enough of a understanding of science to confirm this. Or is it just a belief? You seem to believe that a falling rock is Gravity. That is the effect of Gravity. If you have a scientific reason for your belief in Gravity, then prove it!
At this point, pods, you are making a fool of yourself.
What sort of hoops are you trying to get me to jump through in order to try and compare gravity to evolution. You are certainly not addressing evolution's weaknesses, only playing a semantics game we used to play in the 8th grade. ("Prove" you are here, type thing) But I will sum up the obvious: Gravity is observed (remember it is a phenomenon observed by its effects...like wind) and tested. You are still devoid of a refutation.
It is like asking me to prove you to be a dunce and all I have are your posts...which, I suppose, are the effects of your duncedom.
"Gravity is observed (remember it is a phenomenon observed by its effects...like wind)"
Sounds very logical, Stream.
But also very paradoxical coming from a person who argues for the belief in an all-encompassing supernatural boogeyman.
(PSSST!! Podster! Ask him if he believes the Earth was created 6,000 years ago...watch'em dodge, duck, dive, dip and dodge that one, without a simple straightforward answer)
If one 'believes' in Gravity, and yet has no scientific knowledge to prove it, then how can one declare evolution invalid, using that same system of 'belief' as the basis. You have no scientific knowledge of Gravity, so I guess you have no knowledge of evolution. I cannot detect any scientific knowledge from you at all. If you mistake the simple question of Gravity for Gravitation, your science knowledge is about the sixth grade level, and you should show greater restraint in stating 'Scientific Facts' in the future. Stick to religion!
If I'm a ignorant fool, and you are the one out to make points of fact in this science thread, then you are a very poor science teacher. I'm just trying to learn from your great depth of scientific knowledge, so that evolution can be disproved, and Gravity proved.
To laugh at men of science is the privilege of fools. (Had to paraphrase there, but it makes the point)
Glad you could stop by, C.
Why is my statement paradoxical? I have always argued that science has reached its limits in the observable. After that, it is inferential at best, and becomes as much a matter of faith as the belief that the earth is roughly 6K years old. No paradox there...just a lack of undertsanding on your part. (Again with the nuanced argumentation.)
Yes, I do believe that, by the way. There is a lot of evidence supporting my belief...not that you would ever care to lool or think about anything that contradicts your worldview.
No ducking or dodging here.
C- Since he did not answer immediately, I guess he is off to Google or Wikipedia the difference between a gravitational field, and gravity. It will take some time.
But I think he will now only respond to your comment now.
I think we are getting a little to nit-picky on gravity.
There are things you simply cannot prove. Can you see, hear, touch, taste, or grasp gravity? No. Is it there? Yes. Gravity is only a word that describes its effects, as it is not physical in nature so it cannot be "proven." Only its effects can be tested. This is a semantical argument.
Love is the same way. Can you prove love? No. Is it there? According to this reasoning then no, only the effects of love. So what is love? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.........Whoa thought I was at the Roxbury for a sec. Anyways, I think we should all be able to agree thus far.
Canuck was diplomatically agreeing with Stream, however in order to keep in Pod's good graces, he tried to pull a switch-a-roo.
Streamlined, as I said before you lack perspective just as any creationist does. You guys are just overestimating your importance to the universe, which actually is zero.
The fact that you lack understanding aspects of modern science does not mean that science has reached its limits, it just became more complex than you can comprehend (or are willing to acknowledge since it interferes with your objectives).
Creationists are either not sufficiently educated to understand or they have evil intent.
whew... all this heavy talk about God and Evolution and all that crap!!! Just get me a beer, a gun, my woman, and I'm good to go!!! Who gives a shit who created all this? Does it help me get laid?
Bug-
Please read my post. You simply made stuff up (a habit among some here).None of what you said did I argue.
Better double-check that old "statistically had to happen" statement. Do you even know what statistics to which you refer?
Streamlined, are you a scientologist? With your method of discussion I am really waiting for you to start asking "what is your problem?".
You are either so uneducated that you would have through run to school again to be able to grasp the scientific concept (which I doubt as you are quite capable of dodging any fact thrown at you) or you are one of the guys who support creationism because they think they have something to gain from it.
Your point is as valid as the earth is flat. And it is obviously pointless to argue with you as you just reject anything based on faith.
Streamlined - Here is a link to an article in Scientific American. No, I am not going to give you an annotated bibliography on the many papers that have utterly destroyed many of the comments that you makein your posts here. I have a job, kids, life, etc. and cannot devote much time trying to save you from wasting your intellectual capital on creationism. Which is a pity as you obviously have education and intelligence, of a kind. This article does a competent job of addressing many of the usual creationist claims about the end of evolution, gaps in the fossil record, and irreducible complexity.
Ummmmm.....This would not hold a whole lot of credibility as it is not from a peer-reviewed journal. It may have some valid points, but looks like it is based on opinion and without credible explanations.
Try using a reference WITHOUT a spelling mistake in the first paragraph (unless your country spells "do not" - "donut." Maybe the whole .PDF was a joke, as was using the Infinite Monkeys as "proof," and they meant to write "donut holed." Really, spelling does count toward credibility.
Canuck-
Using "Inherit the Wind" to make a claim. Proving me right all along...you get your "facts" from the media...unfiltered, uncritically. I beg you to bring it on anytime. You have yet to cut me to ribbons, ever.
Unp-I can only assume you did not read the article you just cited. If you have a specific question, ask it. Those are very easy arguments to upend. (There are a few strawmen in there as well...but, one would have to well-versed in biology to know that.)
Pods-Keep trying with your "gravity vs. gravitation" soliloquy. Until you have something to offer...
Happens to have been one of my all-time favourite plays since my early teens, which was ....GASP!!....based on a TRUE EVENT!!:
The Scopes "Monkey Trial", Tennessee, circa the 1920's.
Now ya see what those fine CHRISTIAN FOLK tried to do to that school teacher only doing his JOB??? Friends of yours, Stream? Y'know, the same lot who believe as you do? 6,000 years? Uh-huh.
Canuck- You never cease to amaze me with your unbridled passion for things that ain't so.
There is virtually nothing...and, buddy, I mean NOTHING, in the play that resembled or happened in the Scopes Monkey Trial. (I did research on it and recently completed another history of that event.)
It was contrived and hate-filled...most of which never occurred. But, you would, again, have to look into the matter. Since the play fit your stereotype of Christians, why bother, right?
You don't know a thing about the trial or wha lead up to it...just a play. I see clearly how you have been educated.
COURT IS IN RECESS!! THE DEFENDANT WILL BE SILENT!!
BAILIFF!! TAKE HIM AWAY!!
(and a whisper: your old "it's a vicious lie-it never happened-its propaganda-and it was twisted by the media to make us look bad-its a liberal conspiracy" argument is getting stale, Bro. You can only use that so many times, before you really ARE convicted, y'know? And you have used it an awful LOT. Smarten up, and I'll see you when court resumes in the A.M.)
Inherit the Wind is fiction and was intended as such from the beginning. Like Arthur Miller's The Crucible, it was inspired by the events of the McCarthy era, particularly the suppression of ideas then prevalent (ClassicNote 1999). T
he authors tried to emphasize its fictionality by using fictional names for the characters. In the print version of the play, they write,
"Inherit the Wind is not history. The events which took place in Dayton, Tennessee, during the scorching July of 1925 are clearly the genesis of this play. It has, however, an exodus entirely of its own.... The collision of Bryan and Darrow at Dayton was dramatic, but it was not a drama. Moreover, the issues of their conflict have acquired new dimension and meaning in the thirty years since they clashed at the Rhea County Courthouse. So Inherit the Wind does not pretend to be journalism. It is theatre. It is not 1925. The stage directions set the time as "Not too long ago." It might have been yesterday. It could be tomorrow. (Lawrence and Lee 1955)"
Unfortunately, the drama has been treated as history by others, particulary by the movie promoters. This does a disservice to both the history and the drama. The history is recorded elsewhere (e.g., Larson 1997). The drama is about attitudes and ideas. The fact that the drama remains popular through the decades shows that the ideas are still relevant today.
Dramatic license with history is common in many other dramas, such as Bertolt Brecht's Galileo and the movies 1776, Spartacus, and The Passion of the Christ, to name just a few.
THIS IS IMPORTANT HERE GUYS:
Creationism is a multi-million dollar business with numerous speaking, publishing, and other publicity outlets. Complaints that it is suffering from undue propaganda, much less that it is being systematically censored, are pure paranoia.
This latter point is important and is why Richard Dawkins makes such sense... I will stand up and truly say proudly that I find Creationism a hugely flawed system. Evolutionary Theory is far less flawed.
Streamlined, your assertions that Evolutionary theory is only a hypothesis are asinine. Even though it is a theory, in itself there is nothing inately wrong with this.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based).
The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these.
Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002).
Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact as has been suggested above
Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.
Rest that big brain tonight. Tomorrow ask some intelligent questions about the current topic and we can have a discussion. (Unlikely, but what the hey.)
Stream - I am really sad that you don't know how little you know. I wish I could explain it to you, but if I eat less, it doesn't make others loose weight I have ascertained that you and the chum squad inmates, will have to find their way without learning from others, but from religion. I hope it works for you (really), but if you are only willing to accept 'facts' from a select group of like minded individuals, and deny any truth can be garnered from others, then it will be a very long journey indeed.
I would recommend that first being humble before God, also includes his works as well, and his works include other humans outside of the 'Group'. If you are really humble before God, then science is the real book of knowledge, and the scientists are the priests in the great temple.
I wish you well, even after all of your vulgarities and put downs that you have directed at me. I hope you can find a way.
Comments (443)