Science facts

[blunthead]

Just consider that at the end of his life Darwin regretted his statements about "evolution", grieving that people had constructed what he called their own "religion" from them.

The fanatical and twisted attitudes of evolution’s defenders enticed Lewis to agree that “evolution is the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives”. We’ve been blinded to asking certain questions. Darwinism helps restrict what questions we ask of nature.


Lewis was troubled by the growing intolerance he saw among evolutionists who seemed to treat any criticism of their views as an attack upon science itself. Lewis had a sharply different vision of what science should be like.


In his view there was nothing anti-science about questioning dogmatic claims made in the name of science. Indeed, he thought good science recognized the benefits of questions and criticisms in helping science correct its own errors. Lewis’s growing awareness of the fallibility of science was expressed powerfully in his final book, The Discarded Image…


Lewis argues in the book that scientific theories are supposals rather than facts. These supposals try to account for as many facts as possible, with as few assumptions as possible, but according to Lewis such supposals by scientists are provisional - they can be wrong. Lewis further argued that scientific revolutions often are not the result simply of discovering new facts; that science often presents a view popular at a given time and based upon assumptions already in place.


“The Darwinian revolution in biology was certainly not brought about by the discovery of new facts.” - CSLewis

 

[blunthead]

I don't really want this to be a "Hot Topics" out of place, but sure, logic can mislead. Ambrose Bierce summed it up nicely: A man can dig a posthole in 60 seconds. 60 men can do the work of one man 60 times as fast. Therefore, 60 men can dig a posthole in one second.

But evolution isn't a theory (many of its processes are, but not the fact that organisms evolve) based solely on logic, and its study encompasses hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, findings, and proofs. It's been observed, measured, and modeled in many different arenas, hypothetical to actual, micro to macro.

The story about Darwin recanting and deathbed conversion was denied by his family, who were around when he was dying, and it's most likely apocryphal.

Who said his family denied it? I'm not questioning that this is what you've heard, I'm asking questions.

As for your defense of Darwinism/evolution "theory" (supposals), please watch the video first. You might learn something.

 

[Walter Oobleck]

Who said his family denied it? I'm not questioning that this is what you've heard, I'm asking questions.

As for your defense of Darwinism/evolution "theory" (supposals), please watch the video first. You might learn something.

I agree. The video was instructive. I've read maybe one book from Lewis, little if anything from the others...possibly some Darwin. Melville's Enchanted Isles stories have a great metaphor that could be applied to science. There is a rock in the islands where both Melville and Darwin spent time...a rock that from a distance looks like the sail of a ship...if one looked at it from a distance and looked at it with the knowledge one had at the time...clipper ships. Today, perhaps it would like something else to us. The reality is that it was rock covered with bird droppings.

The video makes the same point but in a different way, informing the viewer how Lewis suggested the time of the viewer colors the portrait one believes they are looking at. The same general idea applies to history...as times change the historical view of a subject changes. There's more to the video, that is one idea among many expressed.

 

[Grandpa]

If the scientific process doesn't constantly question assumptions, it's useless. It's a religion. It can't advance without questioning itself. But it does advance.

For instance, our knowledge of evolution is greatly expanded, and different in many ways, from the first Darwinian theories. It's kinda like Copernicus. The earth does revolve around the sun, rather than vice versa. Copernicus got that much right. And in the meantime, we've learned much more about our sun being a star like other stars, elliptical orbits, wobbling rotations, gravity, and nuclear fusion. We learned that by constant questioning.

I'm not an evolutionist any more than I am a gravitist (gravitationist?). It's not a belief structure. It's an organic process that we've learned much about and still have to learn much more. It's as central and innate to biology as the period table of the elements is to chemistry.

 

[Grandpa]

Who said his family denied it? I'm not questioning that this is what you've heard, I'm asking questions.

As for your defense of Darwinism/evolution "theory" (supposals), please watch the video first. You might learn something.

I don't have sources. My understanding from reading over the years is that his wife was present during Darwin's death and quoted his last words, which said he had no fear of death and expressed love for his family. His daughter said she was present at his death and there was no deathbed confession. His son was quoted as saying the recant/conversion account was a complete fabrication. Apparently, there was an evangelical lady who said she was present during Darwin's death and heard these supposed things, but it's widely regarded to be an apocryphal story.

I'm really not interested in pro-Christian and anti-Christian ball-lobbing. I read up on things. The tracks of evolution are in what we see every day, in the sicknesses we have, the pets we nurture, the food that we eat, in the rocks that we view, and in the DNA that contains our history maps.

 

[Bryan James]

Gravynecessitor.

 

[Grandpa]

As for your defense of Darwinism/evolution "theory" (supposals), please watch the video first. You might learn something.

I agree. The video was instructive.

And guys, I could do that, and then I could also present a Richard Dawkins video on evolution, and we could have a debate between video presentations. But that's not my style, and if my style takes me out of the dialogue, so be it. I don't want to watch videos while I discuss, and I don't want to rely on quotes of any favored punditry. I'd prefer to have an actual dialogue.

And in fact, I haven't watched any Richard Dawkins videos. I'm pretty sure what he'd say. I do read Discover and National Geographic when I can.

 

[blunthead]

 

[blunthead]

 

[blunthead]

 

[blunthead]

 

[blunthead]

 

[Walter Oobleck]

So when I call someone a "spud" that's a compliment?

 

[booklover72]

[Qmoo

UMooresOTE="blunthead, post: 128089, member: 9147"]

[/QUOTE]
Moores Law - Every 18 months A Processor gets smaller and more powerful. It was done by a chap called Gordon moore at intel, if you look it up in google it will say every 2 years, but it is every 18 months. A CPU is made up of sand.

 

[Riot87]

Does it have a name?

 

[Jordan]

Regarding Darwin:

Darwin’s biographer, Dr James Moore, lecturer in the history of science and technology at The Open University in the UK, has spent 20 years researching the data over three continents. He produced a 218-page book examining what he calls the ’Darwin legend’. He says there was a Lady Hope. Born Elizabeth Reid Cotton in 1842, she married a widower, retired Admiral Sir James Hope, in 1877. She engaged in tent evangelism and in visiting the elderly and sick in Kent in the 1880s, and died of cancer in Sydney, Australia, in 1922, where her tomb may be seen to this day.

Moore concludes that Lady Hope probably did visit Charles between Wednesday, September 28 and Sunday, October 2, 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present. He describes Lady Hope as ‘a skilled raconteur, able to summon up poignant scenes and conversations, and embroider them with sentimental spirituality.’ He points out that her published story contained some authentic details as to time and place, but also factual inaccuracies — Charles was not bedridden six months before he died, and the summer house was far too small to accommodate 30 people. The most important aspect of the story, however, is that it does not say that Charles either renounced evolution or embraced Christianity. He merely is said to have expressed concern over the fate of his youthful speculations and to have spoken in favour of a few people’s attending a religious meeting. The alleged recantation/ conversion are embellishments that others have either read into the story or made up for themselves. Moore calls such doings ‘holy fabrication’!

And regarding Lewis... well, he was a theologian, and not a scientist. It shows in the videos. Even though I enjoyed many of Lewis's books in my youth, I'm with Sagan (and opposed to pseudoscience).

 

[Neesy]

Does it have a name?

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond?

 

[Grandpa]

Does it have a name?

There's two possibilities:

55 Cancri e, which is indeed 40 light-years from earth, but rather than being solid diamond, it's suspected to have a high incidence of diamonds in its composition. And

PSR J1719-1438, which is a hundred times farther away, 4,000 light-years, where the "planet" is the one part of a binary star system, except that it's suspected that the star's death left a core of crystalline carbon. If so, that would be a true diamond "planet." So in too-simplistic terms, it's really a leftover star's core, but it's solid, and it's about three times the size of earth.

 

[blunthead]

Bird Urban Legends - Bird Hoaxes

 

[blunthead]