Religions > Atheism > TOBS: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"King7rook5" |
| Date: |
29 Apr 2006 07:48:11 AM |
| Object: |
TOBS: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an
interview: “If you look into science you will find a sense of intricacy,
depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much more powerful than
the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.” Then he added: “I would not
even object to saying that the sense of awe before the grandeur of
nature is itself a religious experience.”
.
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
29 Apr 2006 11:07:51 AM |
|
|
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an
interview: “If you look into science you will find a sense of intricacy,
depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much more powerful than
the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.” Then he added: “I would not
even object to saying that the sense of awe before the grandeur of nature
is itself a religious experience.”
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote, that your
religion could be "wrong"?
--
Come visit us at the IIDB:
http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php
The BEST Atheist website!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Koi-Lo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and Aquariums a Religion: Carl Sagan says get an aquarium |
29 Apr 2006 09:56:57 PM |
|
|
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:rbM4g.923567$x96.328744@attbi_s72...
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an
interview: "If you look into science you will find a sense of intricacy,
depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much more powerful than
the offerings of any bureaucratic religion." Then he added: "I would not
even object to saying that the sense of awe before the grandeur of nature
is itself a religious experience."
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote, that your
religion could be "wrong"?
She needs to get an aquarium and start buying fish. Hobbies such as
aquariums are pleasant and takes a fundys mind off their punishing god or
gods. It helps relax them........ etc.
Fish group snicked.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sudoku" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
29 Apr 2006 12:18:44 PM |
|
|
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an
interview: “If you look into science you will find a sense of intricacy,
depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much more powerful than
the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.” Then he added: “I would not
even object to saying that the sense of awe before the grandeur of nature
is itself a religious experience.”
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote, that your
religion could be "wrong"?
Of course it has been wrong many times in the past. Can you admit the
possibility, however remote, that your
athesim and evolution could be "wrong"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Limnophile" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
29 Apr 2006 01:59:18 PM |
|
|
"Sudoku" <boring@game.org> wrote in message
news:UdN4g.2007$O_6.940@trnddc08...
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an
interview: “If you look into science you will find a sense of intricacy,
depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much more powerful than
the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.” Then he added: “I would not
even object to saying that the sense of awe before the grandeur of
nature is itself a religious experience.”
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote, that
your religion could be "wrong"?
Of course it has been wrong many times in the past. Can you admit the
possibility, however remote, that your
athesim and evolution could be "wrong"?
Have any of the people in this thread considered the posibility that it has
nothing to do with aquaria ? Please check the "to" line before sending
replies.
Thanks;
Limnophile
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sudoku" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
29 Apr 2006 04:05:22 PM |
|
|
Limnophile wrote:
"Sudoku" <boring@game.org> wrote in message
news:UdN4g.2007$O_6.940@trnddc08...
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an
interview: “If you look into science you will find a sense of intricacy,
depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much more powerful than
the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.” Then he added: “I would not
even object to saying that the sense of awe before the grandeur of
nature is itself a religious experience.”
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote, that
your religion could be "wrong"?
Of course it has been wrong many times in the past. Can you admit the
possibility, however remote, that your
athesim and evolution could be "wrong"?
Have any of the people in this thread considered the posibility that it has
nothing to do with aquaria ? Please check the "to" line before sending
replies.
Thanks;
Limnophile
We were invited here by Koi-lo. When she stops contaminating our waters,
we will leave yours alone.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
29 Apr 2006 04:27:46 PM |
|
|
"Sudoku" <boring@game.org> wrote in message
news:UdN4g.2007$O_6.940@trnddc08...
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an
interview: “If you look into science you will find a sense of intricacy,
depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much more powerful than
the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.” Then he added: “I would not
even object to saying that the sense of awe before the grandeur of
nature is itself a religious experience.”
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote, that
your religion could be "wrong"?
Of course it has been wrong many times in the past. Can you admit the
possibility, however remote, that your
athesim and evolution could be "wrong"?
Yes, absolutely!
--
Come visit us at the IIDB:
http://iidb.org/vbb/index.php
The BEST Atheist website!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
29 Apr 2006 06:34:32 PM |
|
|
Sudoku wrote:
Donald E. Flood wrote:
=20
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message=20
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an=20
interview: =93If you look into science you will find a sense of=20
intricacy, depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much more=
=20
powerful than the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.=94 Then he =
added: =93I would not even object to saying that the sense of awe=20
before the grandeur of nature is itself a religious experience.=94
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote, that =
your religion could be "wrong"?
=20
Of course it has been wrong many times in the past. Can you admit the =
possibility, however remote, that your
athesim and evolution could be "wrong"?
Nope. There is no God in the same vein that there is no Ra.
Evolution is the mutation of species in accordance to stimuli. The=20
evidence of human evolution is overwhelming. And can be observed in=20
living humans:
Compare
http://www.eaglescry.com/Eskimo.jpg
with
http://customtourguide.com/africanimages/africanimagesL/a13L.jpg
with
http://rush-limbaugh.net/index_r3_c1.jpg
Yes, they're all Homo sapiens sapiens, but each looks very different.
As for our ancestors, well, they're dead, but we can observe the changes =
as we go further back in time, back through Australopithecus where Homo=20
and Pan split off, and into Ardipithecus, and into Sahelanthropus to=20
Pieropithecus.... all the way back to Aegyptopithecus.
--=20
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************=09
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sudoku" |
|
| Title: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagansays Yes |
30 Apr 2006 07:02:03 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Sudoku wrote:
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an
interview: “If you look into science you will find a sense of
intricacy, depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much
more powerful than the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.” Then
he added: “I would not even object to saying that the sense of awe
before the grandeur of nature is itself a religious experience.”
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote, that
your religion could be "wrong"?
Of course it has been wrong many times in the past. Can you admit the
possibility, however remote, that your
athesim and evolution could be "wrong"?
Nope. There is no God in the same vein that there is no Ra.
Evolution is the mutation of species in accordance to stimuli. The
evidence of human evolution is overwhelming. And can be observed in
living humans:
You are misleading. And you know it. You are talking about speciation.
Speciation is not well defined, not even if the infamous non peered
reviewd T.O Faqs. Next you are going to say; genetic engineering is
evolution. What you are describing is Darwinism at is best.
Darwin believed that all plants, animals and humans had evolved from
previous “lower” forms of life by means of gradual changes over vast
periods of time. He reasoned that everything living had originally come
from a “few forms” of life or just one, adding: “From so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and
are being evolved.” (Origin of Species) Today, those who accept
evolution generally adhere to the same basic ideas, believing that
living things were not created by God, but that they evolved.
What Darwin saw during his visit of just a few weeks on the Galápagos
was an “inspiration for many of his views” on evolution, says the
Encyclopædia Britannica. And what he observed was this:
(1) that living things on the Galápagos were similar to those on the
South American continent, and he concluded that they came from there
originally, not being created on the Galápagos
(2) that over the years, variations in those living things on the
Galápagos made them somewhat different from their “cousins” on the
mainland. These two basic observations, he felt, reinforced his belief
that plants and animals keep changing little by little, so that
eventually they evolve into entirely different forms of life.
Darwin assumed that a belief in creation required that totally different
plants and animals be created in various places, especially on oceanic
islands far removed from other land areas. For example, of St. Helena in
the southern Atlantic Ocean, he said: “He who admits the doctrine of
creation of each separate species, will have to admit that a sufficient
number of the best adapted plants and animals were not created for
oceanic islands,” having obviously come from other areas.
Regarding the absence of frogs on some ocean islands, he said that the
lack of them “on so many true oceanic islands cannot be accounted for by
their physical conditions: indeed it seems that islands are peculiarly
fitted for these animals; for frogs have been introduced into Madeira,
the Azores, and Mauritius, and have multiplied . . . But why, on the
theory of creation, they should not have been created there, it would be
very difficult to explain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
30 Apr 2006 07:17:47 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:02:03 GMT, Sudoku <boring@game.org> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Sudoku wrote:
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an
interview: “If you look into science you will find a sense of
intricacy, depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much
more powerful than the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.” Then
he added: “I would not even object to saying that the sense of awe
before the grandeur of nature is itself a religious experience.”
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote, that
your religion could be "wrong"?
Of course it has been wrong many times in the past. Can you admit the
possibility, however remote, that your
athesim and evolution could be "wrong"?
Nope. There is no God in the same vein that there is no Ra.
Evolution is the mutation of species in accordance to stimuli. The
evidence of human evolution is overwhelming. And can be observed in
living humans:
You are misleading. And you know it. You are talking about speciation.
Speciation is not well defined, not even if the infamous non peered
reviewd T.O Faqs. Next you are going to say; genetic engineering is
evolution. What you are describing is Darwinism at is best.
Darwin believed that all plants, animals and humans had evolved from
previous “lower” forms of life by means of gradual changes over vast
periods of time. He reasoned that everything living had originally come
from a “few forms” of life or just one, adding: “From so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and
are being evolved.” (Origin of Species) Today, those who accept
evolution generally adhere to the same basic ideas, believing that
living things were not created by God, but that they evolved.
No, he didn't "believe" that. Evolution was accepted by the educated
long before Darwin.
And nobody "believes living things were not created by God" - that is
an emotionally prejudicial strawman about something utterly
irrelevant.
Evolution is a non-controversial fact. "The only people who object to
it are religious fundamentalists who ignore reality when it
contradicts doctrine, and resort to lies about everybody else.
What Darwin saw during his visit of just a few weeks on the Galápagos
was an “inspiration for many of his views” on evolution, says the
Encyclopædia Britannica. And what he observed was this:
(1) that living things on the Galápagos were similar to those on the
South American continent, and he concluded that they came from there
originally, not being created on the Galápagos
(2) that over the years, variations in those living things on the
Galápagos made them somewhat different from their “cousins” on the
mainland. These two basic observations, he felt, reinforced his belief
that plants and animals keep changing little by little, so that
eventually they evolve into entirely different forms of life.
No,moron. He merely gave the first scientifically derived explanation
of the fact of evolution. It supplanted other explanations for the
fact of evolution.
[rest of this ***** snipped]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Koi-Lo" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
30 Apr 2006 09:14:48 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:fba952pvgh1j1djo6g8r3ntrs13ivr8g95@4ax.com...
No,moron. He merely gave the first scientifically derived explanation
of the fact of evolution. It supplanted other explanations for the
fact of evolution.
[rest of this (*JABRIOL) ***** snipped]
Please check your newsgroup line as he's adding AQUARIUM and POND groups to
harass his victim Carol who posts there.
Thanks! :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sudoku" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagansays Yes |
30 Apr 2006 12:33:22 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:02:03 GMT, Sudoku <boring@game.org> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Sudoku wrote:
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an
interview: “If you look into science you will find a sense of
intricacy, depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much
more powerful than the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.” Then
he added: “I would not even object to saying that the sense of awe
before the grandeur of nature is itself a religious experience.”
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote, that
your religion could be "wrong"?
Of course it has been wrong many times in the past. Can you admit the
possibility, however remote, that your
athesim and evolution could be "wrong"?
Nope. There is no God in the same vein that there is no Ra.
Evolution is the mutation of species in accordance to stimuli. The
evidence of human evolution is overwhelming. And can be observed in
living humans:
You are misleading. And you know it. You are talking about speciation.
Speciation is not well defined, not even if the infamous non peered
reviewd T.O Faqs. Next you are going to say; genetic engineering is
evolution. What you are describing is Darwinism at is best.
Darwin believed that all plants, animals and humans had evolved from
previous “lower” forms of life by means of gradual changes over vast
periods of time. He reasoned that everything living had originally come
from a “few forms” of life or just one, adding: “From so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and
are being evolved.” (Origin of Species) Today, those who accept
evolution generally adhere to the same basic ideas, believing that
living things were not created by God, but that they evolved.
No, he didn't "believe" that. Evolution was accepted by the educated
long before Darwin.
So.. Darwin was plagiarizing. Understood.
And nobody "believes living things were not created by God" - that is
an emotionally prejudicial strawman about something utterly
irrelevant.
Atheist Do. It seem you have Strawman on top of a strawman. Brokeback
moment?
Evolution is a non-controversial fact. "The only people who object to
it are religious fundamentalists who ignore reality when it
contradicts doctrine, and resort to lies about everybody else.
I guess that a qualifier for "controversy"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
30 Apr 2006 02:01:00 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:17:47 -0400, in alt.atheism , Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> in
<fba952pvgh1j1djo6g8r3ntrs13ivr8g95@4ax.com> wrote:
[snip]
No, he didn't "believe" that. Evolution was accepted by the educated
long before Darwin.
What do you mean by "evolution" here? What was not "believe" was
either descent with modification or common descent. Those are two of
Darwin's great insights.
And nobody "believes living things were not created by God" - that is
an emotionally prejudicial strawman about something utterly
irrelevant.
Plenty of people think that living things were not created by God.
[snip]
No,moron. He merely gave the first scientifically derived explanation
of the fact of evolution. It supplanted other explanations for the
fact of evolution.
Darwin identified the great facts of evolution, Common Descent, and
explain them.
[rest of this ***** snipped]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
30 Apr 2006 06:34:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 19:01:00 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:17:47 -0400, in alt.atheism , Christopher A.
Lee <calee@optonline.net> in
<fba952pvgh1j1djo6g8r3ntrs13ivr8g95@4ax.com> wrote:
[snip]
No, he didn't "believe" that. Evolution was accepted by the educated
long before Darwin.
What do you mean by "evolution" here? What was not "believe" was
either descent with modification or common descent. Those are two of
Darwin's great insights.
No. It was already known that species changed and diverged over time.
This had been observed in fossil collections. And was given the label
of evolution.
Darwin's wasn't even the first attempt at an explanation, just the
first scientifically derived one. It superceded Lamark's which was
also descent with modification - of acquired characteristics not
accumulated mutains filtered by natural selection.
And nobody "believes living things were not created by God" - that is
an emotionally prejudicial strawman about something utterly
irrelevant.
Plenty of people think that living things were not created by God.
Think what that sentence presumes.
It is an emotionally prejudicial strawman based on presumptions that
only apply to theists.
And no different than thinking Santa Claus didn't do it either.
[snip]
No,moron. He merely gave the first scientifically derived explanation
of the fact of evolution. It supplanted other explanations for the
fact of evolution.
Darwin identified the great facts of evolution, Common Descent, and
explain them.
The facts were already known among the educated. Who were called
"evolutionists". His grandfather Erasmus Darwin was one.
[rest of this ***** snipped]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
30 Apr 2006 02:01:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:02:03 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <%G15g.1102$6d4.456@trnddc03> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Sudoku wrote:
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an
interview: “If you look into science you will find a sense of
intricacy, depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much
more powerful than the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.” Then
he added: “I would not even object to saying that the sense of awe
before the grandeur of nature is itself a religious experience.”
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote, that
your religion could be "wrong"?
Of course it has been wrong many times in the past. Can you admit the
possibility, however remote, that your
athesim and evolution could be "wrong"?
Nope. There is no God in the same vein that there is no Ra.
Evolution is the mutation of species in accordance to stimuli.
That is an odd formulation. Evolution is the change in populations
over time.
The
evidence of human evolution is overwhelming. And can be observed in
living humans:
You can observe it over generations of living humans.
You are misleading. And you know it. You are talking about speciation.
Speciation is not well defined, not even if the infamous non peered
reviewd T.O Faqs.
Actually speciation is well *defined*, it is sometimes hard to
identify. Of course evolution predicts that we would see that.
Next you are going to say; genetic engineering is
evolution.
Genetic engineering does use evolution.
What you are describing is Darwinism at is best.
What is the difference between "Darwinism" and "evolution"?
Darwin believed that all plants, animals and humans had evolved from
previous “lower” forms of life by means of gradual changes over vast
periods of time.
No, he did not believe in lower or higher forms.
He reasoned that everything living had originally come
from a “few forms” of life or just one, adding: “From so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and
are being evolved.” (Origin of Species) Today, those who accept
evolution generally adhere to the same basic ideas, believing that
living things were not created by God, but that they evolved.
Since overwhelming evidence shows that life has change over time those
who believe in g(G)od(s) would think that g(G)od(s) acted over time.
What Darwin saw during his visit of just a few weeks on the Galápagos
And across South America. And his work has been supported by thousands
of people working for the 150 years since.
was an “inspiration for many of his views” on evolution, says the
Encyclopædia Britannica. And what he observed was this:
(1) that living things on the Galápagos were similar to those on the
South American continent, and he concluded that they came from there
originally, not being created on the Galápagos
It is called biogeographic distribution and it supports Common Descent
with millions of piece of evidence.
(2) that over the years, variations in those living things on the
Galápagos made them somewhat different from their “cousins” on the
mainland. These two basic observations, he felt, reinforced his belief
that plants and animals keep changing little by little, so that
eventually they evolve into entirely different forms of life.
Darwin assumed that a belief in creation required that totally different
plants and animals be created in various places, especially on oceanic
islands far removed from other land areas. For example, of St. Helena in
the southern Atlantic Ocean, he said: “He who admits the doctrine of
creation of each separate species, will have to admit that a sufficient
number of the best adapted plants and animals were not created for
oceanic islands,” having obviously come from other areas.
Please note that "creation of each separate species" is not
"creationism" in general.
Regarding the absence of frogs on some ocean islands, he said that the
lack of them “on so many true oceanic islands cannot be accounted for by
their physical conditions: indeed it seems that islands are peculiarly
fitted for these animals; for frogs have been introduced into Madeira,
the Azores, and Mauritius, and have multiplied . . . But why, on the
theory of creation, they should not have been created there, it would be
very difficult to explain.
And your explanation is?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagansays Yes |
30 Apr 2006 10:47:52 PM |
|
|
Sudoku wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
=20
Sudoku wrote:
Donald E. Flood wrote:
"King7rook5" <chess@checkmate.org> wrote in message=20
news:fgJ4g.1475$nV4.1105@trnddc04...
The popular scientist Carl Sagan, for example, once stated in an=20
interview: =93If you look into science you will find a sense of=20
intricacy, depth, and exquisite beauty which, I believe, is much=20
more powerful than the offerings of any bureaucratic religion.=94=20
Then he added: =93I would not even object to saying that the sense =
of=20
awe before the grandeur of nature is itself a religious experience.=
=94
Apples & Oranges! Do you admit the possibility, however remote,=20
that your religion could be "wrong"?
Of course it has been wrong many times in the past. Can you admit=20
the possibility, however remote, that your
athesim and evolution could be "wrong"?
Nope. There is no God in the same vein that there is no Ra.
Evolution is the mutation of species in accordance to stimuli. The=20
evidence of human evolution is overwhelming. And can be observed in=20
living humans:
=20
You are misleading. And you know it. You are talking about speciation.=
=20
Speciation is not well defined, not even if the infamous non peered=20
reviewd T.O Faqs. Next you are going to say; genetic engineering is=20
evolution. What you are describing is Darwinism at is best.
Any type of speciation is evolution, whether man-made or otherwise.=20
Evolution is simply a mutation in response to stimuli. And I have seen=20
nothing that could even begin to falsify Darwinism.
=20
Darwin believed that all plants, animals and humans had evolved from=20
previous =93lower=94 forms of life by means of gradual changes over vas=
t=20
periods of time.=20
Careful, now. "Lower" in the context of Darwinian theory relates to the =
place on a species-tree that we draw. Imagine a gigantic tree. It=20
starts with a single trunk. As we go upwards, branches go off in all=20
directions, splitting many times. Currently living animals are on the=20
"edges" of that tree and "lower" means "farther down on the evolutionary =
tree." There is no "lower value" placed on these animals.
He reasoned that everything living had originally come=20
from a =93few forms=94 of life or just one, adding: =93From so simple a=
=20
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and=
=20
are being evolved.=94 (Origin of Species) Today, those who accept=20
evolution generally adhere to the same basic ideas, believing that=20
living things were not created by God, but that they evolved.
Right.
=20
What Darwin saw during his visit of just a few weeks on the Gal=E1pagos=
=20
was an =93inspiration for many of his views=94 on evolution, says the=20
Encyclop=E6dia Britannica. And what he observed was this:
(1) that living things on the Gal=E1pagos were similar to those on the=
=20
South American continent, and he concluded that they came from there=20
originally, not being created on the Gal=E1pagos
(2) that over the years, variations in those living things on the=20
Gal=E1pagos made them somewhat different from their =93cousins=94 on th=
e=20
mainland. These two basic observations, he felt, reinforced his belief =
that plants and animals keep changing little by little, so that=20
eventually they evolve into entirely different forms of life.
=20
Darwin assumed that a belief in creation required that totally differen=
t=20
plants and animals be created in various places, especially on oceanic =
islands far removed from other land areas. For example, of St. Helena i=
n=20
the southern Atlantic Ocean, he said: =93He who admits the doctrine of =
creation of each separate species, will have to admit that a sufficient=
=20
number of the best adapted plants and animals were not created for=20
oceanic islands,=94 having obviously come from other areas.
=20
Regarding the absence of frogs on some ocean islands, he said that the =
lack of them =93on so many true oceanic islands cannot be accounted for=
by=20
their physical conditions: indeed it seems that islands are peculiarly =
fitted for these animals; for frogs have been introduced into Madeira, =
the Azores, and Mauritius, and have multiplied . . . But why, on the=20
theory of creation, they should not have been created there, it would b=
e=20
very difficult to explain.
So, what's your gripe?
--=20
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************=09
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robunda S. Wiska" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
30 Apr 2006 11:19:07 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:445584f3$0$23914$6d36acad@taz.nntpserver.com...
So, what's your gripe?
That this is this cross-posted to an *Aquarium* keepers NG? Please check
your NGs line because jabbers keeps adding off-topic groups.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sudoku" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagansays Yes |
01 May 2006 09:27:20 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Regarding the absence of frogs on some ocean islands, he said that the
lack of them “on so many true oceanic islands cannot be accounted for
by their physical conditions: indeed it seems that islands are
peculiarly fitted for these animals; for frogs have been introduced
into Madeira, the Azores, and Mauritius, and have multiplied . . . But
why, on the theory of creation, they should not have been created
there, it would be very difficult to explain.
So, what's your gripe?
Are you reading what I just posted? the absence of many other mammals on
various ocean islands, Darwin stated: “It cannot be said, on the
ordinary view of creation, that there has not been time for the creation
of mammals; . . . Why, it may be asked, has the supposed creative force
produced bats and no other mammals on remote islands? On my view this
question can easily be answered; for no terrestrial mammal can be
transported across a wide space of sea, but bats can fly across.”
Were his assumptions correct? Must a Creator have fashioned totally
different living things in different places, especially on remote
islands? And were the differences Darwin observed in living things on
ocean islands, compared to their mainland counterparts, so great that it
could be said that new types were being evolved?
Wait until I get into finches...
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagansays Yes |
01 May 2006 08:14:35 PM |
|
|
Sudoku wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
=20
Regarding the absence of frogs on some ocean islands, he said that=20
the lack of them =93on so many true oceanic islands cannot be account=
ed=20
for by their physical conditions: indeed it seems that islands are=20
peculiarly fitted for these animals; for frogs have been introduced=20
into Madeira, the Azores, and Mauritius, and have multiplied . . .=20
But why, on the theory of creation, they should not have been created=
=20
there, it would be very difficult to explain.
So, what's your gripe?
=20
Are you reading what I just posted? the absence of many other mammals o=
n=20
various ocean islands, Darwin stated: =93It cannot be said, on the=20
ordinary view of creation, that there has not been time for the creatio=
n=20
of mammals; . . . Why, it may be asked, has the supposed creative force=
=20
produced bats and no other mammals on remote islands? On my view this=20
question can easily be answered; for no terrestrial mammal can be=20
transported across a wide space of sea, but bats can fly across.=94
=20
Were his assumptions correct? Must a Creator have fashioned totally=20
different living things in different places, especially on remote=20
islands? And were the differences Darwin observed in living things on=20
ocean islands, compared to their mainland counterparts, so great that i=
t=20
could be said that new types were being evolved?
You're not understanding what I asked. What's your gripe? Where is
Darwin wrong here? Remember, even Darwin didn't have all the answers.
He didn't have access to microscopic comparison charts, DNA comparison
tools, or many of the tools today.
Many of the predictions he made were educated guesses -- theories, if
you will -- on what he was observing in the strata and in the living real=
m.
So, again, I ask, what is your gripe? What was Darwin fallacious in sayi=
ng?
=20
Wait until I get into finches...
=20
Oh, please do.
--=20
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************=09
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sudoku" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagansays Yes |
03 May 2006 06:19:42 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
Many of the predictions he made were educated guesses -- theories, if
you will -- on what he was observing in the strata and in the living realm.
So, again, I ask, what is your gripe? What was Darwin fallacious in
saying?
No, in conclusion by others. I will explain shortly.
Wait until I get into finches...
Oh, please do.
It appeared to him that many different species of finches had evolved
on the islands of the archipelago. The variations were mostly in the
size and shape of their beaks. Darwin felt that these different beaks
had evolved according to the differing conditions on the various
islands. As the Encyclopædia Britannica put it: “The Darwin finches have
developed a multitude of adaptive types from one common ancestor. They
differ mainly in beak shape and size.”
However, naturalist guide Ronald Daeumler, who recently spent two years
on the Galápagos, observed: “Frankly, I was astounded on learning that
this was really Darwin’s most convincing reason to show that evolution
was a possible explanation of the origin of the species. He reasoned
that if the finch could, as he called it, evolve a new beak, then it was
probable that it could also evolve into another animal if enough time
was granted. Could this thinking really be the foundation that has
caused so many millions of people to renounce the concept of an
intelligent creator? Was this the strongest support that Darwin’s
islands could give to evolution?
Daeumler continues,“As a guide I was really interested in being able to
identify the different finches. But since they are called different
species I had imagined that identification would be a very easy process.
However, as I did research I came to realize that the differences
between these so-called species were so small that many could be
identified only by weighing or measuring different organs such as the
heart or brain. As one author said: ‘It is only a very wise man or a
fool who thinks he is able to identify all the finches which he sees.”’
Daeumler then observes: “But really, have the Galapagos finches made
what could be called evolutionary changes, changes that in time could
change them into something else? Or are these finches simply variations
and adaptations that are common to all different, basic types of
animals? The facts were clear to me: these finches were still finches
and nothing else, and long ages of time were not making them change into
something else.”
Wait until I get on the Galapago themselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "-ED" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
03 May 2006 08:31:28 AM |
|
|
And what does this have to do with aquarium husbandry?...please try to
contain your cross-postings....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sudoku" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagansays Yes |
03 May 2006 10:17:36 AM |
|
|
-ED wrote:
And what does this have to do with aquarium husbandry?...please try to
contain your cross-postings....
We are hereby invitation from your moderator Carolyn Gulley aka Koi-lo.
next question?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
03 May 2006 09:32:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 May 2006 11:19:42 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <il06g.40139$C63.15612@trnddc06> wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
Many of the predictions he made were educated guesses -- theories, if
you will -- on what he was observing in the strata and in the living realm.
So, again, I ask, what is your gripe? What was Darwin fallacious in
saying?
No, in conclusion by others. I will explain shortly.
Wait until I get into finches...
Oh, please do.
It appeared to him that many different species of finches had evolved
on the islands of the archipelago. The variations were mostly in the
size and shape of their beaks. Darwin felt that these different beaks
had evolved according to the differing conditions on the various
islands. As the Encyclopædia Britannica put it: “The Darwin finches have
developed a multitude of adaptive types from one common ancestor. They
differ mainly in beak shape and size.”
However, naturalist guide Ronald Daeumler, who recently spent two years
on the Galápagos, observed: “Frankly, I was astounded on learning that
this was really Darwin’s most convincing reason to show that evolution
was a possible explanation of the origin of the species. He reasoned
that if the finch could, as he called it, evolve a new beak, then it was
probable that it could also evolve into another animal if enough time
was granted. Could this thinking really be the foundation that has
caused so many millions of people to renounce the concept of an
intelligent creator? Was this the strongest support that Darwin’s
islands could give to evolution?
Daeumler continues,“As a guide I was really interested in being able to
identify the different finches. But since they are called different
species I had imagined that identification would be a very easy process.
However, as I did research I came to realize that the differences
between these so-called species were so small that many could be
identified only by weighing or measuring different organs such as the
heart or brain. As one author said: ‘It is only a very wise man or a
fool who thinks he is able to identify all the finches which he sees.”’
Well, this guide was wrong about Darwin's evidence. There are multiple
lines that point to evolution. Actual biologists have spent time in
many places, including the Galapagos, examining the process Darwin
described. It does occur.
Daeumler then observes: “But really, have the Galapagos finches made
what could be called evolutionary changes, changes that in time could
change them into something else? Or are these finches simply variations
and adaptations that are common to all different, basic types of
animals? The facts were clear to me: these finches were still finches
and nothing else, and long ages of time were not making them change into
something else.”
Wait until I get on the Galapago themselves.
What is a "basic type of animals"? That sounds like the standard
creationist confusion regarding how evolution works. What was this
guide doing on the islands?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sudoku" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagansays Yes |
03 May 2006 11:38:50 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
What was this
guide doing on the islands?
I don't know, What do you think "guides" do?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
03 May 2006 04:30:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 May 2006 16:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <u056g.1949$g01.1824@trnddc01> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
What was this
guide doing on the islands?
I don't know, What do you think "guides" do?
Show people around. As opposed to field biologists, for example, who
study the life in an area. I would not expect this tour guide to have
the best insight to the work of the biologists. You can read _The Beak
of the Finch_ for an excellent, albeit getting a bit old, description
of actual work on the Galapagos finches.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sudoku" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagansays Yes |
03 May 2006 08:10:47 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 16:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <u056g.1949$g01.1824@trnddc01> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
What was this
guide doing on the islands?
I don't know, What do you think "guides" do?
Show people around. As opposed to field biologists, for example, who
study the life in an area. I would not expect this tour guide to have
the best insight to the work of the biologists. You can read _The Beak
of the Finch_ for an excellent, albeit getting a bit old, description
of actual work on the Galapagos finches.
Short sighted don't you think? If every biologist made it rich, more
would be in the field. Many scientist in many fields moonlight as
guides. More so if they are continuing their studies. Some park rangers
are also zoologists etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
03 May 2006 11:06:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 01:10:47 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <rwc6g.13727$Un3.11509@trnddc05> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 16:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <u056g.1949$g01.1824@trnddc01> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
What was this
guide doing on the islands?
I don't know, What do you think "guides" do?
Show people around. As opposed to field biologists, for example, who
study the life in an area. I would not expect this tour guide to have
the best insight to the work of the biologists. You can read _The Beak
of the Finch_ for an excellent, albeit getting a bit old, description
of actual work on the Galapagos finches.
Short sighted don't you think?
What is short sighted?
If every biologist made it rich, more
would be in the field. Many scientist in many fields moonlight as
guides. More so if they are continuing their studies. Some park rangers
are also zoologists etc.
It *could* be that he is a biologist. If he were, however, I would
have expect that, rather than guide, to be part of the description.
You go with the strongest credit you can. But don't keep us waiting,
where did you get the quote from and who is the guy? If he is a
scientist what work has he published?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sudoku" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagansays Yes |
04 May 2006 07:59:13 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2006 01:10:47 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <rwc6g.13727$Un3.11509@trnddc05> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 16:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <u056g.1949$g01.1824@trnddc01> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
What was this
guide doing on the islands?
I don't know, What do you think "guides" do?
Show people around. As opposed to field biologists, for example, who
study the life in an area. I would not expect this tour guide to have
the best insight to the work of the biologists. You can read _The Beak
of the Finch_ for an excellent, albeit getting a bit old, description
of actual work on the Galapagos finches.
Short sighted don't you think?
What is short sighted?
If every biologist made it rich, more
would be in the field. Many scientist in many fields moonlight as
guides. More so if they are continuing their studies. Some park rangers
are also zoologists etc.
It *could* be that he is a biologist. If he were, however, I would
have expect that, rather than guide, to be part of the description.
You go with the strongest credit you can. But don't keep us waiting,
where did you get the quote from and who is the guy? If he is a
scientist what work has he published?
I sent him an e-mail and I awaiting a reply.
That being said. do all scientist get published? is that a rule?
As yo know my father is a microbiologist, retired. I never seen him
write a paper or anything similar. Yet he did work on HIV and other
infectious diseases.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
04 May 2006 09:58:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 12:59:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <BUm6g.1275$yh.835@trnddc04> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2006 01:10:47 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <rwc6g.13727$Un3.11509@trnddc05> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 16:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <u056g.1949$g01.1824@trnddc01> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
What was this
guide doing on the islands?
I don't know, What do you think "guides" do?
Show people around. As opposed to field biologists, for example, who
study the life in an area. I would not expect this tour guide to have
the best insight to the work of the biologists. You can read _The Beak
of the Finch_ for an excellent, albeit getting a bit old, description
of actual work on the Galapagos finches.
Short sighted don't you think?
What is short sighted?
If every biologist made it rich, more
would be in the field. Many scientist in many fields moonlight as
guides. More so if they are continuing their studies. Some park rangers
are also zoologists etc.
It *could* be that he is a biologist. If he were, however, I would
have expect that, rather than guide, to be part of the description.
You go with the strongest credit you can. But don't keep us waiting,
where did you get the quote from and who is the guy? If he is a
scientist what work has he published?
I sent him an e-mail and I awaiting a reply.
That being said. do all scientist get published? is that a rule?
No, they don't all get published. Publication comes from doing
something new and writing it up. It is a sign of original work and
knowledge of the field. Publication is one way to determine someone's
competence but not the only way. If he had spent 2 years in the field
doing science I would hope he would have found something worth
publishing. If he had somehow found things that contradicted
established biology then I would expect he would try to get that
published. The combination of claiming new things and lack of
publication indicates a problem of some sort.
As yo know my father is a microbiologist, retired. I never seen him
write a paper or anything similar. Yet he did work on HIV and other
infectious diseases.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sudoku" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagansays Yes |
04 May 2006 10:26:55 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2006 12:59:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <BUm6g.1275$yh.835@trnddc04> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2006 01:10:47 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <rwc6g.13727$Un3.11509@trnddc05> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 16:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <u056g.1949$g01.1824@trnddc01> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
What was this
guide doing on the islands?
I don't know, What do you think "guides" do?
Show people around. As opposed to field biologists, for example, who
study the life in an area. I would not expect this tour guide to have
the best insight to the work of the biologists. You can read _The Beak
of the Finch_ for an excellent, albeit getting a bit old, description
of actual work on the Galapagos finches.
Short sighted don't you think?
What is short sighted?
If every biologist made it rich, more
would be in the field. Many scientist in many fields moonlight as
guides. More so if they are continuing their studies. Some park rangers
are also zoologists etc.
It *could* be that he is a biologist. If he were, however, I would
have expect that, rather than guide, to be part of the description.
You go with the strongest credit you can. But don't keep us waiting,
where did you get the quote from and who is the guy? If he is a
scientist what work has he published?
I sent him an e-mail and I awaiting a reply.
That being said. do all scientist get published? is that a rule?
No, they don't all get published. Publication comes from doing
something new and writing it up. It is a sign of original work and
knowledge of the field. Publication is one way to determine someone's
competence but not the only way. If he had spent 2 years in the field
doing science I would hope he would have found something worth
publishing. If he had somehow found things that contradicted
established biology then I would expect he would try to get that
published. The combination of claiming new things and lack of
publication indicates a problem of some sort.
You might be right. If he doesn't reply I would be disappointed. Or my
italian is not very good.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dick" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinisn was: Is Evolution and Science a Religion: Carl Sagan says Yes |
05 May 2006 04:39:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 14:58:51 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2006 12:59:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <BUm6g.1275$yh.835@trnddc04> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2006 01:10:47 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <rwc6g.13727$Un3.11509@trnddc05> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2006 16:38:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Sudoku
<boring@game.org> in <u056g.1949$g01.1824@trnddc01> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
What was this
guide doing on the islands?
I don't know, What do you think "guides" do?
Show people around. As opposed to field biologists, for example, who
study the life in an area. I would not expect this tour guide to have
the best insight to the work of the biologists. You can read _The Beak
of the Finch_ for an excellent, albeit getting a bit old, description
of actual work on the Galapagos finches.
Short sighted don't you think?
What is short sighted?
If every biologist made it rich, more
would be in the field. Many scientist in many fields moonlight as
guides. More so if they are continuing their studies. Some park rangers
are also zoologists etc.
It *could* be that he is a biologist. If he were, however, I would
have expect that, rather than guide, to be part of the description.
You go with the strongest credit you can. But don't keep us waiting,
where did you get the quote from and who is the guy? If he is a
scientist what work has he published?
I sent him an e-mail and I awaiting a reply.
That being said. do all scientist get published? is that a rule?
No, they don't all get published. Publication comes from doing
something new and writing it up. It is a sign of original work and
knowledge of the field. Publication is one way to determine someone's
competence but not the only way. If he had spent 2 years in the field
doing science I would hope he would have found something worth
publishing. If he had somehow found things that contradicted
established biology then I would expect he would try to get that
published. The combination of claiming new things and lack of
publication indicates a problem of some sort.
As yo know my father is a microbiologist, retired. I never seen him
write a paper or anything similar. Yet he did work on HIV and other
infectious diseases.
Can any work suggesting Intelligent Design be published in a
scientific journel. Science Weekly did an issue attacking ID, but no
supportive article. I have sent a few letters pointing out a few
ideas from the ID perspective, but they were never printed even after
their anti ID issue.
Fair and balanced is not a phrase to describe scientific publications.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
