Skip to comments.Why Darwin's still a scientific hotshot (Nobel laureate James D. Watson on Darwin and his influence)
Posted on 09/19/2005 3:24:26 AM PDT by snarks_when_boredEdited on 09/19/2005 3:36:21 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
click here to read article
Far be it for me to deny you your small pleasures.
You can't ignore the connection if you're busy inventing it. Evolution does not address the ultimate origins of life. Read that sentence over and over until you get it. I won't hold my breath.
"You can't ignore the connection if you're busy inventing it."
I could not have said it better myself, man's invention.
"Evolution does not address the ultimate origins of life. Read that sentence over and over until you get it. I won't hold my breath."
I need know what came first, origin, just the way my mind works.
sorry, it may be the way I wrote it.. I wasn't refering to AIG as the one I read daily, but the other link I gave.
First off, some people here seem to have a problem with me deciding evolution is garbage... well, I'm sorry, but for me it is, you can make up your own minds.
Now quark, no those aren't the only place I'm getting information, however having consumed a lot of stuff I tend to go to creationsafaris... what is it you have a problem with? Their direct quotes? Their links to articles by all the favorite evolutionists in all of their favorite articles, in Science, Nature, etc. etc. etc. etc......
So the "it ain't true just because it's on the internet", would you be referring to all those articles? Whether you agree with the detailed scientific analysis the guy does or not, you can't accuse him of hiding anything from people. Unlike the evolutionsist who think they are "above" seeing another side. This guy links you directly to the articles and breaks them down, and then after each usually gives his analysis. Now I know you guys dismiss everything right away, but don't assume anything out of context. Just because you read one or two posts that don't ammount to much, other times there are extremely detailed analysis...
Anyway, if it's all so non-scientific and so stupid people will go to http://creationsafaris.com/crevnews.htm and decide for themselves? Let people way the evidence and common sense of things and make up their own minds, instead of pushing this as "facts" that constantly get changed... how many ideas about the solar system have been completely changed this year?
Anyway, like I said in my original post.. I didn't come to get in to the old debate of the "facts", that I've done to death before elsewhere... it really doesn't seem worth the time. I just came with a couple of links... people can make what they will of them, or ignore them, or whatever... but don't misrepresent them.
It may be said there exists no limit to the blindness of interest and selfish habit. I may mention one very trifling anecdote, which at the time struck me more forcibly than any story of cruelty. I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly stupid. In endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in doing which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I was in a passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a frightened look and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall never forget my feelings of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a great powerful man afraid even to ward off a blow, directed, as he thought, at his face. This man had been trained to degradation lower than the slavery of the most helpless animal.
This was written around 1832 or so, more than a generation before slavery was abolished in the United States.
You can decide whatever you want, that's your 1st Amendment right. And the people at creationsafaris, etc. have the right to post anything they want. I don't dipute that. As someone who does have a reasonable science education, I (and others) also have the right to point out where they are mistaken.
Now quark, no those aren't the only place I'm getting information, however having consumed a lot of stuff I tend to go to creationsafaris... what is it you have a problem with?
The blatant distortion of the truth targeted at people with a lack of scientific understanding is what I have a problem with. Quoting technical articles to laypersons is useless unless it is done in the context that was intended.
Now I know you guys dismiss everything right away, but don't assume anything out of context.
I don't dismiss anything right away, but there has to be some scientific validity to an idea for it gain acceptance in the scientific community. The science on these sites is just plain terrible. Repeatedly, over and over again, you see arguments on these sites like "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible" or "mutations cannot add genetic information" or "evidence exists that humans and dinosaurs coexisted", things which are blatantly untrue.
So the "it ain't true just because it's on the internet", would you be referring to all those articles?
No I'm referring to articles that distort or ignore the findings of mainstream science. This is not limited to evolution - there are cranks in almost every field of science. If someone is pitching against the scientific "establishment" or that their claims are being "suppressed", chances are better than not that there's no real substance to them.
Let people way the evidence and common sense of things and make up their own minds, instead of pushing this as "facts" that constantly get changed... how many ideas about the solar system have been completely changed this year?
I do encourage people to weigh evidence and use common sense, but you also have to make sure you're getting accurate information. Creationist websites are notorious for misquoting the conclusions of scientists. As far as facts changing, well, theories do have to refine themselves as information changes, but this usually is a modification, not an overhaul of a whole theory. In the example you gave, yes, many new bodies have been found in the outer solar system; this doesn't change the basic understanding of how it works, it only improves it.
As for what biologists and geologists (and other scientists) really think, who are almost 100% unified in their acknowledgement of evolution , just about any creationist objection to evolution is answered here:
This link actually quotes cited science articles in their intended context, that's the crucial difference.
your reply confirms exactly what I said.. which is that you dismiss everything that disagrees with you without even looking at it... all your criticisms of creationsafaris might be a little more well received if they were directed at Dr. Dino or something, but like I said... creation safaris gives you the links to all the articles they talk about.. I'm not going to reitterate because you clearly have your blinders on and that's fine... as I said, everyone can make up their mind.
as for "new bodies", that isn't what I was talking about in the universe.. I'm talking about the activity constantly being discovered in places that were believed to be old and dead... they're even having to rethink comets after Deep Impact... discovering a "new body" is a little different than the constant story of "puzzling" discoveries about planets and moons all over the place... but like I said, I'm not here to debate you guys on the information.. just providing a couple links, I just couldn't help but respond to that "finding new bodies" business, because that's not a clear representation of all the discoveries of the past year and past couple months.
I'm glad you clarified what you meant. I do agree people should keep an open mind.
Science is always making new discoveries. My only point is that generally this results in the refinement and improvement of theories, not their complete overturning. Discoveries that Mars is more geologically active then we once thought, for example, don't mean all theories about terrestrial geology need to start over from square one.
I have read through articles on creationsafaris and AiG - I wish I could give them a kinder review; they're not as bad as Dr. Dino, I'll give you that, but I still find misinformation in them all the time (I mentioned a few points earlier that I still find presented in the sites you mentioned).
I'm not trying to tell you what to believe, I'm only saying to be careful where you get information from - there's a lot of people out there eager to take people for a ride, not just in evolution, but in all science fields. And I realize this isn't a good argument in itself, but don't let these sites fool you into believing that there is massive dissent among scientists as to whether or not evolution is a true theory - this is simply not the case. There's no easy way to learn about the stuff - truly understanding scientific theories is very difficult indeed. If a small group is printing material without reviews and revisions from relevant specialists across the scientific field, it's more likely that the info is flawed.