|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Best approaches to deal w/ fundamentalism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hello Sky. Gosh, you're a confrontational type aren't you!
quote: Utter piffle. Even if we were to accept that the ToE is false, Darwin still did some pioneering work on barnacles. I know that's not quite what you had in mind, but you should have been more careful in your choice of words.
quote: That's funny, because here in the real world, DNA wasn't discovered until the Nineteen-Fifties. Even Darwin was unaware of its existence. Of course, that is again, not quite what you had in mind. You should try thinking before you type. It is true that variation due to artificial selection was known before Darwin, but that is not the point. Darwin's contribution was to apply that knowledge to the natural world, hence natural selection.
quote: Evidently.
quote: But you have just admitted that your experience in "the trenches" is not relevant to biology. This is as if I were to claim that my extensive expertise in gardening entitled me to pass judgement on brain surgery. You have no relevant expertise, so quit appealing to your own bogus authority. Mutate and Survive Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
By the way, experiments with organic matter take about 90 days to create crude oil like results. No pressure. And we can also makes crystals in labs. What is your point? Are you saying a creator or designer put the oil where it is? Or are you saying that the crude oil in the ground only took a much short period of time to develop into oil than what science currently states? If so how long do you believe it took it to become crude oil? Oh since you are so adamant about proof, can you supply some to back your assertions? Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
By the way, experiments with organic matter take about 90 days to create crude oil like results. No pressure. Which experiments would those be? What conditions, other than "no pressure?" The crude oils that I shake up with hydrochloric acid nearly every day came mostly from microscopic plants, algae, and bacteria that grew in shallow seas. Actual scientists can tell where they came from by looking for things like norhopanes in them. A few oils do involve land plants, even - that from offshore Australia down near Tasmania, for instance. But that's unusual. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
By the way, experiments with organic matter take about 90 days to create crude oil like results. No pressure. Good, we'll be producing all the oil we need soon eh? How much input produces how much oil? While you're at it how much plant matter produces how much coal? Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Then you know better than anyone here that Darwin added nothing to the bio sciences. Any pesant who breed dogs was already fully aware of the inherent diversity of DNA and how the selection process works over 1000 years before Darwin wore his first diaper. And a 1000 years before Newton people already knew that apples fell towards the Earth, so I guess Newton did not add anything to physics either. Right? What Darwin proposed was that variation was independent of fitness. In other words, Lamarck was wrong. Darwin was also the first one to tie together disparate pools of data. He was able construct a theory based upon the fossil record, island endemism, geology, and biogeography. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
Completely correct. I overlooked Darwin's
pioneering work on barnacles.
I stand corrected. (But certainly not "confronted". Only Bible Thumpers are guilty of that sin.) The man produced something of value to Science.
That's funny, because here in the real world, DNA wasn't discovered until the Nineteen-Fifties. Even Darwin was unaware of its existence. True, peasants didn't have the term "DNA" in their vocabulary. I used that term as part of my own vocabulary. They understood how "it" works enough to create one of the most genetically diverse species on the planet without any help from random mutations. Yes, they were also experts on "Natural" selection and Darwin offered no useful insights to that area. The weak die off and produce no weak offspring. Every dog breeder knew that. As for being "more careful"...Wouldn't it be great if you could control what I type? What a wonderful world you envision. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden - Sky-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sky-Writing Member (Idle past 5173 days) Posts: 162 From: Milwaukee, WI, United States Joined: |
While you're at it how much plant matter produces how much coal? I think it was about 300 ft thick organic matter produced 1 foot thick of coal. Sometimes found with tree trunks still embedded in the coal seam. A coal miner from Appalachia may be more informed than me though. I'd ask him. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic post hidden
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Closing this down for a while. This is not a thread to discuss oil, barnacles or dog breeding...unless Macgyver wants to post about how he could cover barnacles in oil, stick them to the back of a specially bred dog, point them in the direction of fundamentalists and ignite. Or something.
Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Thread reopened. No more off topic stuff please. Suspensions will follow for those that insist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alaninnont Member (Idle past 5458 days) Posts: 107 Joined: |
There is a very interesting study by psychologists Kari Edwards and Edward Smith A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments, (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996, Vol. 71, No. 1, 5-24)that presented the same evidence to two groups of people who had opposing views. The result was that the groups became even more polarized.
It doesn't matter which side you're dealing with, it is highly unlikely that argument will persuade individuals to change their ideas because both sides filter information through their belief system.In my opinion, if you're on these forums to try and persuade others that you are right and they are wrong, you're wasting your time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
alaninnont writes: In my opinion, if you're on these forums to try and persuade others that you are right and they are wrong, you're wasting your time. You're probably right. The positive influences of discussion boards like this are probably limited to those still making up their minds, and perhaps to placing a seed doubt in some fundamentalists that might take root sometime down the road. That still leaves open the question of how best to deal with fundamentalism. If they can't be persuaded to change their views, and if they can't even be persuaded to leave science alone and keep religion in church, what are we to do? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alaninnont Member (Idle past 5458 days) Posts: 107 Joined: |
I'm not an expert in pyschology but I have noticed some things in dealing with people.
1. You can't change people's mind by force. They have to want to change. 2. People retreat to defensive, well fortified positions when threatened. It then becomes even harder to move them. 3. War is destructive. Sitting in your bunker shooting artillary may possibly win a battle but the resistance will continue until you completely wipe out the enemy in which case you have an unhealthy dictatorship which will eventually fall. 4. The moral high ground often has the best success in opening up people's minds. If someone treats you like a jerk and you go all Ghandi on them, they tend to look at their actions with shame and begin to question themselves. If they can't be persuaded to change their views, and if they can't even be persuaded to leave science alone and keep religion in church, what are we to do?
I think that science should not be left alone. It should be constantly challenged and questioned. That is part of what science is. I say bring 'em on. In the past, any theory that is valid has eventually won the day. "Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time has come."Victor Hugo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I think that science should not be left alone. It should be constantly challenged and questioned. That is part of what science is. I say bring 'em on. In the past, any theory that is valid has eventually won the day.
Fundamentalists do not accept scientific evidence. I've been told by one that "divine revelation is the highest form of knowledge." They are not out to improve science by challenging theories. They are out to destroy science because those theories conflict with their religious beliefs. Tough to meet that halfway. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3395 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
I have read a suggestion that the only useful thing to do might be very persistent ridicule. I wonder if people could laugh them out of it.
If it became socially unacceptable to hold extreme religious views, they might wither away faster. Sort of like racism today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
alaninont writes: I think that science should not be left alone. It should be constantly challenged and questioned. That is part of what science is. I say bring 'em on. In the past, any theory that is valid has eventually won the day. I think almost everyone here would agree, including myself. The problem is that fundamentalist take their challenges and questions not to science but to school boards and state legislatures. So elaborating my earlier question just a bit it becomes, "Given that they won't take their issues to the halls of science, and given that they won't change their minds and won't keep their religion in church, what is to be done?" --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024