Evolution? How?

Chumly, Good q. Wink

0 Replies

I'm not a scientist, and I understand evolution (well, better than some people here anyway).

0 Replies

Chum,Arthur C Clarke was credited with the idea for artificial telecommunications satellites. He wrote about this in several stories . His ideas came from the discovery of the moons of Mars which in the late 1800s, one was discovered to be essentially a "stationary orbit" satellite fixed to the rotation of Mars.
Bradbury used this concept in his writings. He didnt do the cosmology.

We have to discuss the theme of particular works and when they wereproduced, and Ill bet that there was a recent revelation to the writer about the science involved.
After careful inspection, I dont tink that my idea is particularly earthshaking. You, I believe are providing examples of Science Fantasy or stuff about dystopian society or utopian , for that matter.

Pleae dont give me names, give me a book and a topic, as Im not really a scifi fan.,

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

As usual, you lie by omission and you can't even cover it up! It says, don't have a good understanding. There are some who believe in it that have not gone beyond what they learned in high school about evolution and have not studied the subject on their own for a good many years. I suspect RL is one of those. Sounds like we should take up a collection and buy you an airplane ticket to those lectures. NOT.

Your suspicion is not well founded, Lightwiz.

Moreover, I quoted the phrase you reference. How can you claim I omitted it?

To not have a 'good understanding' of something is substantially the same as saying they don't understand it.

Really, your desparate semantic jab is pathetic.

Let's let Mr. Trott clarify who it is he is talking about who don't have a 'good understanding' of evolution:

Quote:

A lot of people have never had a biology class, or didn't learn about evolution, or learned about it a long time ago

I think it's easy to see why people fitting this description would not understand evolution, don't you?

(Or were you too intent trying to find fault with my post?)

I have mentioned the same thing previously, that many people who claim to believe in evolution do not know much about it. The public school systems, by and large, seem to be geared toward that result , while squashing dissent.

Science scores have been in the toilet for decades, and the teacher's union and administrators' only consistent response has been to demand more money.

Meanwhile there are many small private schools subsisting on a fraction of the money state schools get, but outperforming them in every subject including science.

Previously was discussed the seminars for government school science teachers that addressed 'what are the main tenets of evolution, and why are they important?' So it's not hard to see that the students mirror the teachers. How can they teach something that they don't understand? And how came they to believe in (and teach) evolution if they don't understand it?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
The biologist who organized it admits that most people who support evolution don't understand it.
Name me one person on the planet who "understands" creationism.

Chumly, that's a silly thing to say. Everyone understand creationism. It's not that hard to understand. God exists, he poofed this world into existence. End of story.

It's much harder to defend, mind you.

0 Replies

REAL LIFE----, To remind you that on the opposite side we have guys like Walt Remine, who, although basically self taught as an apologist for "Scientific Creationism" , is hailed by the entire team of Iders and Creation people.
HE touts the continued validity of Haldanes "dilemma", a concept that fell under its own weight when introns were mapped.

0 Replies

As usual, RL rationalizes his not-so-clever twisted semantics. You'd think he'd have figured out nobody is buying it by now but he just keeps traveling along. Also, not-so-cleverly ignoring that he needs a good education in evolution as obviously the less-than-basic understanding he now has is pathetically inadequate. He's constantly asking questions which are foolish questions and, I suspect, just silly bait. Ya ain't no master baiter, RL. That's likely good if you are a Catholic but I realize it's not frowned on in other denominations (which I have no idea which one you belong to).

It only requires that one read Darwin and understand natural selection to actually be able to realize how imaginative the Bible really is. One accepting the Bible as literal has little understanding of methaphors and parables. A "good" education would be to follow that up with most of the latest findings which, so far, only are minor tweaks of Darwin. They still point conclusively towards how evolution took place.

0 Replies

One of the great parts of my personal education was the times I visited the fossil displays in the Teddy Roosevelt Museum in Manhattan, in the late 1960s. That, plus reading Darwin and several others on the subject, does not make me an expert on evolution, but, I have eyes, and a brain, and I would have to make a large stretch to discount the fact that evolution simply is.

0 Replies

You are exactly right, edgarblythe. Although it's not difficult to read, for instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica's articles on evolution and get very up-to-date. I guess some have an affliction about actually reading anything other than pulling stuff off of biased religious sites -- they are trying to convince themselves that it can't be true as much as trying to convince anybody else. I've had a lifetime of experience with religious sharks and they don't have any teeth.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
The biologist who organized it admits that most people who support evolution don't understand it.
Name me one person on the planet who "understands" creationism.

God

0 Replies

real life wrote:

... many small private schools subsisting on a fraction of the money state schools get, but outperforming them in every subject including science ...

I submit, rl, that your implied argument in favor of a science testing benefit accruing to creationist/ID-iot-supportive schools was blown outta the water Here. Back out the educational systems/pardigms operated under the aegis and precepts of the major evolution-endorsing/ID-rejecting religious parent bodies and the ID-iocy-endorsing educational systems fare dismally.

0 Replies

Rex wrote-

Quote:

You don't think that a scientist in a lab could not accidentally stumble on the key to uncreate existence?

Such a paranoid idea would never enter my head so it would be impossible for me to think it.

Now that you have made me think it I still don't think there's any chance of such a thing which is the most likely reason for me never to have thought of it.There' must be billions of possible things that I have never thought of so I'll work my way through them before I get round to the impossible things.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Chum,Arthur C Clarke was credited with the idea for artificial telecommunications satellites. He wrote about this in several stories . His ideas came from the discovery of the moons of Mars which in the late 1800s, one was discovered to be essentially a "stationary orbit" satellite fixed to the rotation of Mars.
Bradbury used this concept in his writings. He didnt do the cosmology.

We have to discuss the theme of particular works and when they wereproduced, and Ill bet that there was a recent revelation to the writer about the science involved.
After careful inspection, I dont tink that my idea is particularly earthshaking. You, I believe are providing examples of Science Fantasy or stuff about dystopian society or utopian , for that matter.

Pleae dont give me names, give me a book and a topic, as Im not really a scifi fan.,

What I am trying to explain is that there are many realms of what is now called "SF". "Hard Science Fiction" with the scientific plausibility extrapolation is but one type. "SF" is real big and a lot of what you personally may not consider "SF" is classified as such (for better or worse as mentioned).

"SF" now covers "Speculative Fiction" too at least in many SF editors, publishers and marketers eyes. I am not saying I agree with this lumping together or that it makes sense but

I'll see if I can dig up some actual stories that are "SF" but are not "Hard Science Fiction". Problem is, I don't read much outside of the realm of "Hard Science Fiction" any more, and so far I have not been able to motivate you pick up a volume of short stories by the two authors I mentioned Ray Bradbury and/or Ursula Le Guin. Short stories will most aptly make my point.

You like country music? I am a musician so I can tell you that the classification "country music" came after the fact, and is open to interpretation and argument. The broad categorization of "SF" goes a lot further.

Perhaps this may help, if you don't wanna pick up a volume of short stories by Ray Bradbury and/or Ursula Le Guin:

Here is a Canadian-produced TV series scripted by famed science-fiction author Ray Bradbury. I don't know if you have seen them but they are great: http://www.innermind.com/myguides/guides/bradbury.htm

This may help you understand the breadth of Ursula K. Le Guin's writings and yet, again she is classified as an "SF" writer (for better or worse as mentioned): http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue189/interview.html

It's ******* raining here in Vancouver (again) and I have to move the motorcycles into the garage and do the old clean up (well soon anyway).

0 Replies

God is now "a person." Laughing

Three guesses who thinks they are that person.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
The biologist who organized it admits that most people who support evolution don't understand it.
Name me one person on the planet who "understands" creationism.

Chumly, that's a silly thing to say. Everyone understand creationism. It's not that hard to understand. God exists, he poofed this world into existence. End of story.

It's much harder to defend, mind you.

Good humors!

0 Replies

Quote:
"God is now "a person."

The bible says, man was created...

0 Replies

Why god needed a penis is a mystery all its own.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

God is now "a person."

Three guesses who thinks they are that person.

The Rock Whisperer (2006)
Directed by: God
Writing credits: (RexRed)

Plot Outline: The mother of a severely traumatized daughter enlists the aid of a unique rock trainer to help the girl's equally injured rock.

Comments: Rocks are also sensible and need affection.

0 Replies

..."in God's own image." Howver, that doesn't qualfy "him" as a "person."

That would be an earthly term, but in the case of the direction I was going in, an "unearthly person?"

The only "rocks" are those that have been lieft in someone's head.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know