On Tuesday 19 June 2018 22:29:20 Thierry de Coulon wrote:
I did not answer at first because I think everyone is free to believe or not, but this time too much is simply wrong.
On Wednesday 20 June 2018 02.31:18 Felix Miata wrote:
It's not a versus. Evolution IS a religion:
It's definitely *not*
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t ... 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:...
"Evolution", as taught, is not subject to proof.
This is wrong. Just as some may kill member of other religions although theirs tell them not to, I can't make sure that there are not some who "teach" evolution as a religion, but evolution is a *theory*, that itself has evolved once first proposed. It has evolved because scientific evidence has showed that proposed explanations did not fit to facts
As taught it's all based on theories, aka beliefs.
Wrong again. A theory is driven by *facts*. It's a model that needs to be modified if it's not able to explain new facts that are discoverd.
Micro-evolution is without question real and provable, but micro-evolution is not taught as distinguishable from the other 6 types of unprovable evolution, such as that which says dinosaurs and man did not coexist.
This simply comes from the fact that datation methods (which by the way use the same physics that are used in CERN to improve another model, which tries to explain how matter is made) show that dinosaurs disappeared 65 millions years ago while man in its modern form is some two million years old.
That's as if you said it is unprovable that I could not meet Darwin.
Technically, it's arguably true that dinosaurs didn't, because "dinosaur" is a word originally created during the 19th century. Before then, the creatures since referred to as dinosaurs were called dragons, and there has been found much art on the walls of caves and elsewhere created many tens of centuries ago that indicate man was interacting with living dragons.
From which not a single bone has ever been found. My daughter draws a lot of "animals" that have never existed, and never will exit. (I admit she does not draw on a cave).
then I think (or maybe, I believe) that we need to start another thread, if not indeed a separate forum, list, or whatever.
True. I doubt TDE will ever "evolve" to clear this sort of things :)
One of my reasons to reply was to highlight the unending inane off-topic threads about coffee, chocolate & dinosaurs polluting this list and its archive. If dinosaurs are OK, then anything should go. I'd like to see OT stuff keep to a minimum or less.
Thanks for speaking for myself and others on behalf of science.
Yet while I agree with you about the science, and disagree with Felix (and probably others) about religion, I still hold that they are free to believe whatever they want. I only ask that we can coexist in peace. I will leave you in your ignorance, if you agree likewise to leave me in mine.
Furthermore, even whether or not I agree with them, I still recognize their contributions to the list; and Felix has made many useful suggestions.
But I don't think that we can put a stop to off-topic threads merely by making stricter rules, or policing by heavy-handed moderators. It seems to me that we need a separate list or thread in which we can discuss all our off-topic silly or contentious rants; and which others will then be free to ignore.
For anybody who wishes to know what I think about dragons (and why they are not, and never were, dinosaurs), I've attached a text file. Anybody who wants to continue the conversation can write directly to my email address, rather than dragging out this thread.
Mythology and religion do not necessarily have to be in conflict with science; but when these things are politicized (as everything else nowadays), contradictions arise where really there are none.
Bill
P.S. See attachment (if you choose).