BS: Cosmos

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 03:15 PM

Musket, name calling and personal attacks will get your posts deleted. It's not just SRS. These are things that any moderator may delete, IF we see them. I couldn't possibly read all the sick shit posted here, but I see some of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 02:19 PM

Some of the worst threads are repellent enough that there is no need to describe why people of sound mind don't want to read them if they don't have to. It's not taking sides, it's occasionally getting really fed up with all of the playground bullies. Musket, you'll have to speculate about someone else deleting your bad behavior, it wasn't me.

Each of you should take some time every day to read threads above the line. You don't need to say anything, just go there to learn what Mudcat is really about. Please don't say anything if you can't be informative, helpful, supportive, and at all times civil.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 01:23 PM

If SRS only looks at threads when someone complains, that says a lot about why mine go missing in other threads. If you can't win your argument, try and silence the other guy.

Anyway , back to this.

I did see a bit of it years ago when they showed it over here but on the back of this debate I have ordered the DVD set. Of course, finding time to watch it may be a bit tricky.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 12:31 PM

Do you not see that the difference is that I am offended by your behavior while you are not by mine?

I have no right not to be offended. A philosophy that works a treat for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 12:09 PM

I know, after fifteen years believe me, I know.
Its the eternal optimism of human spirit or plain ol ignorance I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

There's a lesson here, Donuel - compose the big ones in Word first before copying & pasting 'em over here where only the mods are given powers of saving, editing, censorship & deletion, no doubt in the name of a greater democracy that needs vigilant policing at every turn - hardly an environment in which to nurture enlightened discourse. I know at least three important voices who no longer post here for that very reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 11:44 AM

Any way my post began with a not to the ego squabbles of late.

Deletions for malevolent speech do good, depending upon the topic, but do injure egos.

It is ironic that many people do not know that their only true enemy is their own ego. Ego blocks the human potential for understanding and the value of thinking that is far beyond what ego could ever create. Wisdom does not come from exercising ego, ego blocks true potential. Until one reaches that evolutionary stage of understanding we should be patient with those who are yet on the road of wisdom but have in a sense, only begun. To attack those who are afflicted with the exposed raw nerve of ego, need some further travel of their own.
{I am sincerely not being snooty but just honestly stating some psychological truths.}

The rest of my post involved the big important discoveries leading to the new physics that will/could lead to time travel in any direction.
I listed the people and colleagues who have made such theoretical discoveries and described their work.

Perhaps I will present elsewhere the best mysteries and questions of cosmology that are on the cusp of flowering not out of ego, but to link to more easily in case of thread closing and such.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 11:21 AM

2 hours of writing and editing was lost in a single key stroke again.
Control Z to no avail. It was my singular most serious post in a year.

I hate when that happens.


'''walking way hat in hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 11:07 AM

>>>I get a bollocking for calling you Wacko, yet (unless it's all been done by PM, Of course) you escape censure for similar transgressions as well as a load of childish effin' 'n' blindin', which is at least something I've never resorted to. <<

Do you not see that the difference is that I am offended by your behavior while you are not by mine?

SRS has said that she does not even look at threads unless there are complaints. I have made it very clear to you and everyone else how tired I am of your bullying and name calling.

I was told by one moderator to "fight my own battles" hence the effen this and that and the "pshaws". That, predictably, had no effect. But I felt that I owed it to the unnamed moderator to give it a try. Lets forget about the past and focus on from now on. Lets try to be civil to one another.   

Lets try to get this effin thread back on track so that we can talk about what I hope will be a cultural watershed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 10:54 AM

of course

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 10:53 AM

Steve Shaw,

I am so sorry, I had no idea that you were bothered by the p in front of the surname. I thought that for you childishly mocking names was a sign of affection. How about you and I stop doing that from now on?

Bothered, moi? Not at all. Just slightly surprised by an apparent double standard being applied. I get a bollocking for calling you Wacko, yet (unless it's all been done by PM, Of course) you escape censure for similar transgressions as well as a load of childish effin' 'n' blindin', which is at least something I've never resorted to. And as for making any sort of agreement with you, well I'd rather make a bloody pact with the devil. If you want me to be nice to you, start posting sensible, well-considered stuff that does not misrepresent either yourself or me or anyone else or contain downright lies, you know, telling me that I claim to be this, that and the other when I've done no such thing, etc. If you try, and I know how damned hard it will be for you, I promise to give you marks for effort. But I'm not holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 10:34 AM

Name-calling escalates the bad feelings in quarrelsome threads. When complaints come in and I take the time to read through such a thread (instead of just closing it) the verbal slugfest is usually the worst part of the problem. My participating in a thread or not is my choice, and with all but the thesis in an M.A. in environmental philosophy, this one is a natural.

If you guys want to keep insulting the intelligence of participants and outsiders who might want to take a look, then we can just keep closing noxious threads. These are the reason a lot of good people have left Mudcat.org, they're tired of the unrestrained nonsense. I suppose my incidentally turning your attention to me instead of insulting each other has brought a small accord amongst some of you. Keep up the good work.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 09:06 AM

The concept of "evolution" - change - goes back far before Darwin and Wallace's identification of a natural mechanism for such change in the context of living things.

Indeed. In Episode 7 of the original Cosmos, The Backbone of the Night, Carl Sagan traces it back to the Ionian philosopher Anaximander, 611 - 546 B.C.E.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 08:50 AM

Steve Shaw,

I am so sorry, I had no idea that you were bothered by the p in front of the surname. I thought that for you childishly mocking names was a sign of affection. How about you and I stop doing that from now on?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:37 AM

The concept of "evolution" - change - goes back far before Darwin and Wallace's identification of a natural mechanism for such change in the context of living things.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 06:23 AM

Where's the like button on Mudcat???

Agree wholehearted with TheSnail there. Stilly River Sage's policing & closure of these threads is noxious in the extreme - far more offensive than the occasional well-intentioned invective.

*

Otherwise...

The facts of the evolutionary case are all around in the diversity of species within basic morphological groups which we can trace back to fossil remains long extinct before other species existed. It's there in the comparison between human necks and that of giraffes, or in comparing our hands with bat wings. This ties in with the history of the universe as a whole, and that of our planet, where life comes into being when the right conditions exist.

Evolution is part & parcel of that process - things begin & develop because there is no other way. All things are the product of long & countless years of evolutionary process. Cultural & Technical Evolution likewise, which most certainly IS observable in the human time-frame, be it over the 10,000 years between Göbekli Tepe and the Large Hadron Collider - or in our own short lifetimes where in my adolescence in the late 70s having a discussion like this using this level of technology was the stuff of Tomorrow's World.

As I said below, the alternatives are both unthinking & unthinkable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdGFWS0m54

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Mar 14 - 05:51 AM

Stilly River Sage (to pete)
I'm not letting you dictate the terms of the discussion

Apparently you think that's your job. You seem to have achieved the impossible by creating a measure of empathy between me and Steve Shaw, something only previously achieved by Jack the Sailor. I think you are creating problems for yourself by trying to take part in the discussion and police it at the same time. You are the one coming over as a bully.

P.S. It's TheSnail not Snail if you don't mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 10:22 PM

"Pointing and laughing is a product of debate, not a precursor. "

All too often it is destructive of any useful debate. It can in fact terminate them.

Stuff like that belongs in the type of debate which is in no way a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 09:43 PM

Bejaysus, another deletion. Who will see? Well I'm off to bed as I must be up early to peruse Lidl's wine bargains in the morning, so the night's merriment is over between us, SRS. Let me leave you with an unoriginal thought. So unoriginal that I posted it only a few short hours ago. Just had a quick butcher's at some of the awful, sweary and insulting posts, some replete with dreadful prejudice, that you HAVEN'T deleted in recent weeks. They're easy enough to find. So here's that unoriginal thought. Yours to live with.

I suggest you would do far better to target the multifarious inanities, disgusting prejudices (including misogyny and homophobia), misrepresentations (of self and others) and lies of some of the participants here rather than attack a bloke who merely falls a little short of charming at times by being a little direct. If someone is being a clot on a public forum they deserve to be called a clot. There is a particularly egregious and long-standing example on this board of a religious fundamentalist who has been indulged and who, as a result, takes the piss out of reasonable people here and beyond here all the time. That's what happens if you call a spade a manual digging implement. I've been sworn at and called names and insulted and misrepresented and lied about far more times than vice versa, in particular by the man who I assume you're trying to defend the most by asking me not to call him names, and I do not complain. And I remind you that you will never find me using the F or C words. I don't recall seeing you having a bash at the people who do that. If...you want to clean up this board a bit, you have far more important targets than yours truly. Steve Shaw, or SJS if you like, no p in front of surname, since 1951. Thank YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 09:29 PM

TheSnail, you are being way way too picky with people who actually agree with you. Give it a rest.

He's fine. Leave him alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 07:40 PM

I hear the sound of knives being sharpened. Another thread lined up for the chop by our resident thread slasher. No wonder it's beginning to look a little thin around here, or is all this pruning meant to stimulate new growth?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 07:28 PM

Pete said:

stilly says evolution is true, is a valid statement [more or less] then concedes it involves conjecture.
more accurately it is a philosophical/religious statement.

You don't understand what I was saying, or you ignore it, Pete. Conjecture doesn't not mean it has to be in the realm of philosophy or religion. I'm not letting you dictate the terms of the discussion, so your myopic argument with no support isn't allowed by me (or many others with sound scientific understanding) to serve as the diametric and equally weighted opposite to the science we're discussing. The religious position as you represent it has no more power than children arguing "yes" "no" "yes" "no" on the playground. It's the old adage, saying it over and over doesn't make it any more correct.

Steve Shaw, you keep calling people names and your posts are going to disappear. You have been warned.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 07:19 PM

Steve Shaw
Well they changed their OWN names fer chrissake!!

You're being a bully. You're calling people names, not the names they chose for themselves. Just back off and be polite. Act like they're sitting across the table from you.

TheSnail, you are being way way too picky with people who actually agree with you. Give it a rest.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 05:09 PM

"more accurately it is a philosophical/religious statement. "

That is true. That's why a clear headed scientist doesn't put it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 04:28 PM

GUEST,pete from seven stars link
he insists on the same question, more or less

No, pete, fundamentally different.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 04:10 PM

isn't it weird ?. I don't know what I,m talking about, if I recall snail correctly, but he insists on the same question, more or less, that I,ve asked so many times before.
stilly says evolution is true, is a valid statement [more or less] then concedes it involves conjecture.
more accurately it is a philosophical/religious statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 03:35 PM

Stilly River Sage
Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

Steve Shaw
Simply stating that evolution is a fact, or is true, is not a scientific pitch.

Stringsinger
Evolution is an observable and decidedly scientific fact

Some divergence of opinion there.

Steve Shaw
Well, snailie, if you really know that those bacteria and moths are shite examples of evolution, and if I know that, and I've never used them, why try to discredit me by posting this piece of garbage:

Just in case you hadn't noticed, this is a public forum not a private conversation. Bill D mentioned the peppered moths and your personal henchgnome gave a link to the bacteria experiment. I'm surprised that you didn't kniow about it. I'd like to thank you for your profuse apology for trying to discredit me by misrepresenting my understanding on the peppered moth observations. Unfortunately, I can't.

Have you watched the Jerry Coyne video yet?
Can you (or Stringsinger) tell me where I can actually observe some evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:14 PM

What is there to bicker about? We are only talking about everything there is, was and will ever be when discussing the cosmos.

Man's notion of god and knowledge are dwarfed by the questions and answers that cosmology poses regarding the seen and unseen, the known and unknowable, and the stored history of everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:11 PM

Would someone please start a nice neutral thread, maybe "Is Darwinism true?"

There is no such thing as Darwinism. It is a pejorative coined by idiots who wish to discredit evolutionary theory. You start the thread, we'll come and get you. Though I'm sure you'll be scurrying for your dictionary first in order to prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:06 PM

Well, snailie, if you really know that those bacteria and moths are shite examples of evolution, and if I know that, and I've never used them, why try to discredit me by posting this piece of garbage:

If you are right, Steve, you should be able to crush me very easily in one of two ways.
1) Show me some evolution. I don't mean a twenty year experiment in an American lab where bacteria suddenly find out how to eat citrate or an observation that moths change colour in a dirty environment...

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 02:01 PM

Please stop changing people's names and calling people names. Use the acknowledged abbreviations - SRS, JtS, etc. but let's stop the thumb in the eye insults. Thank you.

Well they changed their OWN names fer chrissake!! I'm not going to compound the deception of a nom de plume by abbreviating it, largely because I'm broadly sane. If that's your idea of "convention" well it ain't mine. I suggest you would do far better to target the multifarious inanities, disgusting prejudices (including misogyny and homophobia), misrepresentations (of self and others) and lies of some of the participants here rather than attack a bloke who merely falls a little short of charming at times by being a little direct. If someone is being a clot on a public forum they deserve to be called a clot. There is a particularly egregious and long-standing example on this board of a religious fundamentalist who has been indulged and who, as a result, takes the piss out of reasonable people here and beyond here all the time. That's what happens if you call a spade a manual digging implement. I've been sworn at and called names and insulted and misrepresented and lied about far more times than vice versa, in particular by the man who I assume you're trying to defend the most by asking me not to call him names, and I do not complain. And I remind you that you will never find me using the F or C words. I don't recall seeing you having a bash at the people who do that. If you are a mod (I haven't a clue) and you want to clean up this board a bit, you have far more important targets than yours truly. Steve Shaw, or SJS if you like, no p in front of surname, since 1951. Thank YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Stringsinger
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 01:24 PM

Evolution is an observable and decidedly scientific fact supported by a majority of scientists throughout the world, as immutable as gravity, though some wouldn't support that if they were falling off the edge of a cliff.

Tyson is a hero, debunking the religious objections based on no credible scientific evidence for that position which cites the bible as a reference, a cultist manifesto fraught with inconsistencies, fairy tales and an objectionable main character, who, destroying countless people as a mass murderer is celebrated by a fanatical but decreasing majority.

Maybe, but not optimistic, that Cosmos will wake up some of these religious dogma-drug induced addicts from their intellectual torpor.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 01:20 PM

The chicken from Hell. Here's a dynamic combination of parts.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 12:54 PM

The entire "Ascent of Man" series may be found on youtube. I've never seen it, so look forward to watching them.

I'm sorry for your health travails, Catspaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 12:20 PM

Would someone please start a nice neutral thread, maybe "Is Darwinism true?"

And move that conversation there. I am afraid that I will cause more problems than I solve if I do that.

pete, Steve, Dave, Snail, everyone. There is no reason not to start a thread to discuss something you are interested in. That technology is available to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 10:58 AM

On the basis of what I have seen so far and my love for the first Cosmos, I think Tyson was a superb choice and I think this will be an extension as well as a remake of the original. Tyson's love and admiration for Sagan assures that I think.

"Ascent of Man" is another great series that needs a rerun if not a remake. If you never saw it or read the book, pick it up sometime.

Carl Sagan inspired many of us to think more creatively with more tools and he led med me eventually to the greatest, Richard Feynman. If I owe anything to Carl Sagan, I owe him that. I think about Carl Sagan a lot anymore because we also have in common a disease which took his life and on bad days I think of him and wonder if he felt the way I feel. Anyway, I am in the best of company! LOL


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 06:24 AM

This is rather lovely for Cosmos fans old & new:

National Geographic : Who Was Carl Sagan?

*

Watching the episode on the Ionian Philosophers last night, smiling at Anaximander's ideas on Evolution. That's around 611 - 546 B.C.E.

The Truth of Evolution is measured against other universal evolutionary truths, like the evolution of universe, suns, planets, solar systems and life as a whole. All is process, flux & change - we can see this happening day to day in language, culture, music & technology all of which evolve by steady degrees. We can wander around the Natural History Museum and look at our skeletal analogues throughout the animal kingdom from long before there were humans on the planet to newly discovered primate species in the Amazon basin and see the common threads of respective evolutionary developments right there.   

In any case, the alternatives are unthinking & unthinkable, of interest to Storytellers & Folklorists, but once they become 'True', that is the time to worry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmdGFWS0m54

*

The concept of evolution is a human construct not an observable natural phenomenon.

Coming from a Folk Enthusiast, this statement is very rich indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM

Yes Steve, I know about the peppered moth. That's why I excluded it from acceptable evidence of evolution happening. Someone on the Darwin's Witnesses thread had mentioned it as an example.

Now, how about either showing me some evolution happening or responding in a rational way to something I actually said rather than something I didn't?

You're a bit selective about your reading of Stilly River Sage as well. How about commenting on -
Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

Let me pick out a few key words for you -
actual observation
science
conjecture

("you've revealed your deficiencies at last". Since you were wrong about this one, you must now think I have no deficiencies at all. Nice.)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Mar 14 - 03:39 AM

Pointing and laughing is a product of debate, not a precursor.

Not to mention cathartic at times. Even Jack has seen the purity and clarity of the phrase Fuck Off as being an excellent way to demonstrate the integrity of your point.

In a week where possible evidence of the aftermath of the Big Bang has been identified and refinement on a particular type of dinosaur, the ins and outs of evolution are mere detail surely? Organic evolution is being discussed here but Cosmos isn't quite so parochial.

As Carl Sagan once said, we are all stardust.

(But not all are golden eh?)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 10:16 PM

My nom de plume is an homage to my grandfather, and I chose a non-gendered moniker because way back when it was harder for women to be left alone to simply participate in forums. Now no one here would know who I am if I changed to my real name. Gender shouldn't matter in a conversation.

Please stop changing people's names and calling people names. Use the acknowledged abbreviations - SRS, JtS, etc. but let's stop the thumb in the eye insults. Thank you.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 09:01 PM

Do "true" and "fact" not have enough in common to work for you? Too many dictionary definitions of the word "true" make it unacceptable? Coyne says "theory becomes fact" about Evolution. He uses several ways to prove it, but someone simply stating that "evolution is a fact" or "evolution is true" is also accurate.

Indeed. I think "simply stating" just about nails it. Simply stating that evolution is a fact, or is true, is not a scientific pitch. The science is in the theory. I find "theory becomes fact" to be a tad uncomfortable. I'd rather say that "the theory overwhelmingly underlines the fact" (or the truth, if you like).

Apologies for my confusion over your gender. I must try to concentrate right to the end of every post. You'll possibly acknowledge that that can occasionally be a tribulation here that tends to condition one in inappropriate ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 08:50 PM

an observation that moths change colour in a dirty environment.

Rather sad, Snailie, that you've revealed your deficiencies at last. When I was an assistant chief examiner for "A" Level Biology at the University of London (in charge of a team of assistant examiners for the essay paper), I remember a big conflab that took place at our chief examiners' meeting over an essay question on evolution. We finally agreed with the chief examiner that any answer that used the peppered moth as an example of evolution should be scored out and given nil. I suppose I'm going to have to tell you why, aren't I. Both forms of Biston betularia were already present before the Industrial Revolution. The supposed favouring of the melanic form over the white form due to blackening of tree trunks merely caused a change of proportion in the populations of the two. No new mutation, no speciation. And, when the air was cleaned up, normal service was resumed. It's actually an awful example of anything at all, long discredited, and not even without suspicion of fraud. I wouldn't have used that to promote any notion of mine in a million years, old boy. And I can't think that I've ever mentioned the bacteria which you perpetually burble about. They are not an example of evolution either. You tell me I shouldn't say that evolution is true, yet you don't appear to understand the first thing about it yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 07:14 PM

Stilly River Sage
Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

Well, you can do it without the DNA and RNA, Darwin did, but that gets the general idea. Now all we've got to do is persuade Steve Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 06:18 PM

TheSnail linked back to a closed thread and these are featured in two of his links:

What I do have a problem with is turning evolution into a pseudo religious belief system by declaring it to be true. I have said many times, science doesn't do true. . . . Show me some evolution that I can see and touch and smell.

and

The concept of evolution is a human construct not an observable natural phenomenon.

It's like a trick question. Do you have the answer you're waiting to pop on the class after no one gets it right? What is the point of splitting hairs in the way you're attempting? You most of you agree about Evolution but for you Snail, they don't agree enough? Evolution by definition is over time and you don't have enough time in your life to "prove" it by actual observation. It's a science of fossil records, ancient and modern DNA or RNA, and conjecture.

How many evolution supporters can dance on the head of a pin? Do "true" and "fact" not have enough in common to work for you? Too many dictionary definitions of the word "true" make it unacceptable? Coyne says "theory becomes fact" about Evolution. He uses several ways to prove it, but someone simply stating that "evolution is a fact" or "evolution is true" is also accurate. What level of gravitas are you requesting from those who agree with you so that you can really acknowledge that they get it?

Religion is a social construction that, philosophers posit, started as a way to control people and teach them practices for survival. Religions that sprang from remote small settings among indigenous people (autochthonous) are particularly useful for timing the planting of crops, hunting ceremonies, preventing intermarriage between close relatives, and surviving harsh weather. They are markedly different from urban religions that offer illustrations about how to get along with other people, offer commandments of some sort, and (all too often) are parsed by power-brokers to gain riches and exclude those they don't like or agree with. Belief systems tend to dictate ways of living and believing.

"Evolution" isn't a belief system, even though people who do believe in it often (not always!) then tend to dismiss the religious view of how things came to be. One doesn't replace the other part for part. The fact that evolution is true can be proven in many ways and does not require your being able to see it happen in front of you to know it's true. The closest you'll probably come to it personally is if a study of your DNA proves that you have some Neanderthal mixed in with your Homo sapien.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 06:07 PM

anyone know why or who closed the other thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 05:21 PM

"I don't accept that everyone here who uses a pseudonym is not hiding behind it so that they feel more free to say stuff they wouldn't usually say"

And I'm sure you're quite right about that. One of the saddest things is, a number of the honest people who just used monikers for fun or fancy have more or less dropped away from the forum from disgust at the way some of the "false fronts" have messed up the discussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 04:27 PM

I wasn't going to bother after the other thread was closed but if Steve Shaw insists on issuing a challenge, what am I to do?

If you are right, Steve, you should be able to crush me very easily in one of two ways.
1) Show me some evolution. I don't mean a twenty year experiment in an American lab where bacteria suddenly find out how to eat citrate or an observation that moths change colour in a dirty environment. Something as solid and tangible as the digits on your left hand. Something that Darwin would have been able to observe.
2) Start to talk like a scientist. Instead of responding to every hint of dissent with your "Evolution is true" mantra, generally accompanied by a barrage of schoolyard abuse, try actually addressing the points I raise. There are a few things you cheerfully ignored in these two posts on the Darwin's Witnesses thread.
thread.cfm?threadid=153464&messages=1012#3608503
thread.cfm?threadid=153464&messages=1068#3610544

Just in case you can't get the links to work, they were time stamped 09 Mar 14 - 02:10 PM and 18 Mar 14 - 09:11 AM.

I really think you should watch the video that Jack posted. It is a talk by Prof. Jerry Coyne. In his introduction, Richard Dawkins describes him as "... the principle guru to go to on evolutionary genetics in the world." Here it is again - Why evolution is true. Go on, give it a try unless you're afraid of finding something you don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 02:37 PM

Although I'm doing my PhD in vertebrate palaeontology there's no doubt programmes such as Cosmos were a massive influence on me as a boy (I am a mature student, age-wise at least), and Sagan was superb at communicating the wonder, awe and pure joy that science helps us to experience as the process of discovery continues.

Well said. And he did it so well amid all the clunkiness and relative crudeness of the production. I didn't say in spite of. Look what happens when you dress stuff up to give it a bit of modern gloss. You get Brian Cox.



(I like him a lot, actually, but.)

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 02:32 PM

Pleased to meet you. I believe in real names though I accept that exceptions need to be made for a few people. I don't accept that everyone here who uses a pseudonym is not hiding behind it so that they feel more free to say stuff they wouldn't usually say. This end, a coot is a small water-bird.

Subject: RE: BS: Cosmos
From: frogprince
Date: 19 Mar 14 - 11:31 AM

Anonymity? Been on this board for a good number of years now and only yesterday did I have cause to suspect that Stilly River Sage may not be a man. There ya go.

There is hiding in anonymity, and there is using a handle; SRS has signed her real name, and mentioned her background, any number of times. The same is true for quite a few of the regulars here.

I'm Dean Elkins, a retired coot living in Michigan.