vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:38:27 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:16:01 -0400, H the K wrote:


Why should unproven and unprovable religious superstition be "presented"
in public school classrooms as an "alternative" to science?

Bull****.

IMO, it shouldn't. From my perspective, it's just another way of getting
the camel's nose under the tent. Most all religions have a creation
"theory", but that's not what we are discussing here. We're talking
about Christian creation "theory", and that, IMO, would be against the
First Amendment's prohibition on "establishment of religion". If you
were to give equal weight to all Creation "theories", it might pass
muster in some class, but not a science class.

No one, but Harry, has suggested presenting anything as an
'alternative' to science. Apparently *you* are restricting the
argument to 'Christian creation theory'. I've not done so. In fact,
I've used the term 'Higher Power' to allow for any religious belief,
alien belief, or Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

The origins of man have not been proven. Until they are done so, there
is no harm in presenting what several billion (see, I fixed it)
believe, even if presented only as a belief without proof.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:50:02 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

Actually I've seen some dogs and cats that seem to have the ability
for basic reasoning. Here's an example: Back in the early 90s we
inherited a cat from my mother. We took the cat to our home which the
cat had never seen before. Almost immediately he got up on the back
of a sofa and started looking out the front window as a dog walked by
the house. The dog turned down our driveway heading for the back yard
and the cat immediately ran into the kitchen on the back of the house
and waited at a window for the dog to show up. Is that reasoning or
not?


Instinct and learning. The cat knew the dog had gone to its right or
left. It took off. The next available window was in the kitchen.

Who knows. The cat had a way of telling us what he was thinking and
it usually involved food or the lack thereof. There were actually
several rooms before the kitchen, but the kitchen had the best view of
the back yard.

My cats would have stopped at each window and tracked that sucker to
the back yard. Then it would have waved me over to the window and
asked me, politely, to go shoot the friggin' dog.

My cat's smarter than yours. :)
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH
wrote:


Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of
the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years?

Not to me. Standing upright and having an opposable thumb made humans
king of the hill. Then further natural selection developed further
mentality.
I suspect that if homo sapiens were wiped away, one of the other
primates would eventually evolve to take his place.
Just like Planet of the Apes.
Either that, or God would take care of it.
What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't.

--Vic

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:56:51 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

You would think so wouldn't you?

Guess what - it's not.

Read this when you have the time - it's about "peer reviewed" science
and a story that deserves to be told.

And remember - it's all about "peer reviewed science" and how
viewpoints can't possibly affect the "science" once it's been peer
reviewed.

http://tinyurl.com/y855r3v

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:07 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:56:51 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

You would think so wouldn't you?

Guess what - it's not.

Read this when you have the time - it's about "peer reviewed" science
and a story that deserves to be told.

And remember - it's all about "peer reviewed science" and how
viewpoints can't possibly affect the "science" once it's been peer
reviewed.

http://tinyurl.com/y855r3v


Yeah, but that's weather, AKA GW.
Everybody knows weather isn't science.
Scientists might talk about it, but since everybody knows the
weatherman can't predict jack beyond a day out, it can't be considered
"science."
BTW, one of my fav SF short stories had meteorologists navigating
in the sun to tweak the weather.
They were on a special mission to honor the dying founder of the
service, who was laying on a chaise on a tropical beach for his last
breaths.
They were successful. It snowed on him and only him as he kicked off.
Don't remember title or author.
Leave that to old alien jarheads.

--Vic

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Oct 4, 11:34*am, wf3h wrote:
chief vatican astronomer has little use for the ignorant superstition
of creationism:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articl...the-glad-scien...

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces
fierce resistance in some circles..."

And in some circles, scientists believe that Darwins "theories" need
revised...

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20.../#previouspost

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Oct 5, 5:04*pm, Vic Smith wrote:

What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't.

--Vic


I never thought of it that way, Vic.

i suppose I haven't evolved to higher intelligence.

Woe is me....

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:04:38 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH
wrote:


Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of
the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years?

Not to me. Standing upright and having an opposable thumb made humans
king of the hill. Then further natural selection developed further
mentality.
I suspect that if homo sapiens were wiped away, one of the other
primates would eventually evolve to take his place.
Just like Planet of the Apes.
Either that, or God would take care of it.
What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't.

--Vic

If God wanted everyone to have a boat, everyone would have a boat.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:21:22 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 5, 5:04*pm, Vic Smith wrote:

What I find strange is that some people have boats, and others don't.

--Vic


I never thought of it that way, Vic.

i suppose I haven't evolved to higher intelligence.

Woe is me....

You, Tim, are the reason God invented spellcheck.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

vatican astronomer blasts creationism
 

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:57:55 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:45:07 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:56:51 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

You would think so wouldn't you?

Guess what - it's not.

Read this when you have the time - it's about "peer reviewed" science
and a story that deserves to be told.

And remember - it's all about "peer reviewed science" and how
viewpoints can't possibly affect the "science" once it's been peer
reviewed.

http://tinyurl.com/y855r3v


Yeah, but that's weather, AKA GW.
Everybody knows weather isn't science.
Scientists might talk about it, but since everybody knows the
weatherman can't predict jack beyond a day out, it can't be considered
"science."
BTW, one of my fav SF short stories had meteorologists navigating
in the sun to tweak the weather.
They were on a special mission to honor the dying founder of the
service, who was laying on a chaise on a tropical beach for his last
breaths.
They were successful. It snowed on him and only him as he kicked off.
Don't remember title or author.
Leave that to old alien jarheads.

--Vic

Vic, I'm getting the feeling you aren't taking this discussion nearly
as seriously as you should be.

Just be careful next time you eat spaghetti, guy.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.