Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Sam, Sam, Sam

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on September 14, 2002 04:08:39 UTC

***You too? J\k. Acutally the web-site I posted was a creationist showing how it was invalid to use that argument. Not what you said.***

No, you said: "Here is a very in-depth and scientific paper dealing with the accumulation of dust on the moon, showing it could not be as old as said."

I admit, I didn't read the article once I read your comment. I don't go to a link unless it appears worth my time. You gave me no indication that it was worth my time. In any case, I apologize to the author of that article for being misled by your comments. Too bad, even when an honest creationist comes along, it only takes another to misrepresent him. You probably cleared up this issue, and maybe I missed it. To be frank, I try not to read too many of your posts (all together: "it's not worth my time").

***That's what I'm doing. I'm taking Geology at a local community college. And yes, it is evolution.***

That's good, except I wouldn't be surprised if you use that knowledge to undermine geology in future discussions.

***I have several books on evolution, including 'The Orgin of Species'.***

Good, that means you are only 150 years behind the curve.

***How many books on creation have you read?***

I've read maybe a few less than a dozen. Back when I was a little younger than you, I wasn't sure about evolution. So, I researched creation and evolution with an open mind. By the time I was your age I had spent hours talking to paleontologists trying to get as much information as possible. A few prominent paleontologists hung up on me once they found out I was just a 'kid', but the guys that spent the time not going home early, they were able to make me realize why evolution was a beautiful theory. Over time, I started to read more technical books on evolution and less creationist literature. I was, of course, much more open-minded than you. I wasn't so much doubting the facts of science (as you), but I wanted to know God could be involved in evolutionary processes. It's a long road trying to form some satisfactory understanding of such things, but at point I became very comfortable with evolutionary thought. There was a time, though, that the subject made me squirm and even wonder whether God existed.

***H: "Don't be fooled by woodpeckers..." S: Speaking of those, that was the original post, wasn't it? But instead of arguing about those, you go on about those stupid creationist. Hmm....***

It's because, Sam, you don't understand the nature of scientific theories. If you think that science is about having all the answers before a theory is to be accepted, then you should have no interest in science. Even though science as a separate discipline has been going strong for well over 400 years, it is still quite a young enterprise for our species. The answers to the origin of life, the origin of DNA, etc are not solved answers. The woodpecker question is in a long line of unsolved problems. If that makes you feel like you should reject a scientific theory, then go on your merry smug way. But, if there is any twinkle still left in you, if you still haven't blotted out all remaining gleam of hope of learning new natural explanations to unsolved mysteries, then you will feel a tremendous amount of excitement that comes with the future of science. The possibility that the origin of life will be figured out in our time, or the possibility that we will contact other alien civilizations in perhaps your generation, or maybe that we will come upon some fundamental theory of nature which explains how the laws of General Relativity naturally emerge from quantum mechanics, is overwhelming for many scientists.

Oh well, I don't think any of this is getting through. I guess I find it rewarding in some sense to see how you and Aaron react to your introduction to science versus how I reacted. It makes me proud of my parents who raised me in both a religious and open scientific environment by which I could approach these subjects with an open and eager mind. I wish I could give you what I had (and still have), but unfortunately I can't. I wish I could, it would create so many opportunities for you, but unfortunately only you can make those steps. But, you won't. Perhaps you can't. Oh well, good luck all the same.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins