What degrees does Wal Thornhill have ?

[Anaconda]

Hi nick c:

Mike H,
Be prepared for this. From some things, hinted by Bridgman with regard to the EU, I am expecting his strategy will be to connect the EU to creationism. Remember debunking creationism is his specialty. I think that will be his next ploy. He has to know that there is no connection, so any attempt to make such a connection has to be interpreted as intentional deceipt (if that is where he is going). This form of blatant slander, though untrue could be very damaging, in the sense that those scientists who are casually aware of, or totally unacquainted with the EU will likely avoid the topic without any further investigation. The irony is that it is the modern cosmologists who are teaching a form of creationism (ie the Big Bang)!

nick c

Yes, nick c, you were right, Bridgman is attempting to make the connection explicit (see link blow):

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... onism.html

As I stated in the above comment:

...men will kill to prevent others from communicating what exists in the sunlight if that contradicts what the shadows on the cave wall show and it disrupts the power of those who control the fire in the cave.

Today, men rarely "kill" other men over ideas, but they will attempt kill the idea by any and all methods possible because in their minds the ends justify the means.

The motivation? "Follow the money."

[redeye]

Yes, nick c, you were right, Br***man is attempting to make the connection explicit

What really gets me is the divisiveness of it all. Guys like Br***eman truly are defenders of the faith, drawing lines in the sand to seperate bad science from good science. It's so much easier to do this than to admit that one's own scientific dogma is sadly lacking in credibility.

Why do they keep picking on creationism? It's like scientific bigotry, these people believe they are more evolved than others who entertain inferior theories.

It's pretty depressing.

Cheers!

[StevenJay]

StevenJay wrote:
So, as I see it, one may spend one's time and energy locked in conflict with that which one does not desire. . . or, one's time and energy may be spent pursuing that which one does desire.

Of course, one may spend their time, "smelling flowers on a hillside" or other pleasurable pursuits.

I hope you're not suggesting that's what I was alluding to. There are many things in the world that I could argue and debate. But the older I get, the less I choose to do so. If you wish to call that an avoidance on my part, that's fine too. We simply embrace different philosophies in that regard.

[Aardwolf]

I've never understood the creationism v evolutionism debate.

When man creates something he tends to make prototypes of a machine and then build many multiples of the same thing. When adaptation is required, it can mean going back to the drawing board to start over from scratch. It would at least require a return to the original creator, which is very inefficient.

If man were truely intelligent he would create a machine that could adapt itself, or even better, create a better version of itself without the need to go back to the original creator.

It seems to me evolution, in a changing environment, is the best kind of intelligent design there is.