20 Jun
2018
20 Jun
'18
12:06 a.m.
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:
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).
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.