Comments on: Angry astronomy and sad creationism http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:57:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Brian http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-119735 Brian Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:53:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-119735 I stand in an obscure corner in the debate, in the company of a very few people comparatively (so I'm not just a one-man show!). But this reply section isn't the best table to have coffee and a chat at, so please feel free to e-mail me so we can simply conversate--a real, unscripted, peer-to-peer conversation (a dying art today). I like to know people individually, not by the group they stand under. I am not the type to do all the talking, but I ask you to not be so, too--this helps the economy of a good conversation! I aim for beneficial, engaging, and friendly conversations, with personal convictions of respect & dignity, self-control with emotions, and good humor. E-mail me at: mangaFox@hotmail.com and I will respond ASAP (and please wait if it's not next-day immediate--I have over about 20 new e-mails a day and I'm a working student at home! I stand in an obscure corner in the debate, in the company of a very few people comparatively (so I’m not just a one-man show!). But this reply section isn’t the best table to have coffee and a chat at, so please feel free to e-mail me so we can simply conversate–a real, unscripted, peer-to-peer conversation (a dying art today). I like to know people individually, not by the group they stand under. I am not the type to do all the talking, but I ask you to not be so, too–this helps the economy of a good conversation! I aim for beneficial, engaging, and friendly conversations, with personal convictions of respect & dignity, self-control with emotions, and good humor. E-mail me at: mangaFox@hotmail.com and I will respond ASAP (and please wait if it’s not next-day immediate–I have over about 20 new e-mails a day and I’m a working student at home!

]]> By: Brian http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-119729 Brian Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:25:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-119729 Because the details matter, and even the smallest detail can have a profound effect overall. Take water. Add just one oxygen atom to H20 and you get hydrogen peroxide--enough difference to make you not want to drink that compound. Both sides need better character, because knowledge without character is like a star collapsing on its own great weight due to a core too weak to sustain its own gravity. All the name-callings and many opinions leads them both astray from determining truthful facts, and biases taint their judgment when facts do come their way. Fear, ignorance, and arrogance often presents in their debates. And both sides use their cases as vehicles for their personal views (not just Creationists) instead of just proving facts true of what that object is and leaving them unbiasedly assembled & accessible to the public to think for themselves, to possibly have more facts proven by some mind unshaped by others' opinions and beliefs. So, where do I stand? Sorry--one more page! ;) Because the details matter, and even the smallest detail can have a profound effect overall. Take water. Add just one oxygen atom to H20 and you get hydrogen peroxide–enough difference to make you not want to drink that compound. Both sides need better character, because knowledge without character is like a star collapsing on its own great weight due to a core too weak to sustain its own gravity. All the name-callings and many opinions leads them both astray from determining truthful facts, and biases taint their judgment when facts do come their way. Fear, ignorance, and arrogance often presents in their debates. And both sides use their cases as vehicles for their personal views (not just Creationists) instead of just proving facts true of what that object is and leaving them unbiasedly assembled & accessible to the public to think for themselves, to possibly have more facts proven by some mind unshaped by others’ opinions and beliefs. So, where do I stand? Sorry–one more page! ;)

]]> By: Brian http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-119719 Brian Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:42:11 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-119719 This guy failed to use analytical logic, jumping to conclusions entirely on assuming logic. Some Creationists tend to do this--maybe out of fear of feeling threatened, maybe even out of desperate panic. (There are other sublogics, like emotion-based logic and hypothetical (working idea) logic, and this guy used the emotions to think) But then many Evolutionists are quick to assume theories (which, in any form, proven somewhat true or not, is STILL a working idea) already as absolute fact, and in science, that is a fallacy. No matter how good an working explanation seems to works, it is not approved "fact" until it is 100% proven. Not 85%, not 90%, not even 98%. Why, even with what the evidence seems to overwhelmingly suggest so a fact? Read my last comment... This guy failed to use analytical logic, jumping to conclusions entirely on assuming logic. Some Creationists tend to do this–maybe out of fear of feeling threatened, maybe even out of desperate panic. (There are other sublogics, like emotion-based logic and hypothetical (working idea) logic, and this guy used the emotions to think) But then many Evolutionists are quick to assume theories (which, in any form, proven somewhat true or not, is STILL a working idea) already as absolute fact, and in science, that is a fallacy. No matter how good an working explanation seems to works, it is not approved “fact” until it is 100% proven. Not 85%, not 90%, not even 98%. Why, even with what the evidence seems to overwhelmingly suggest so a fact? Read my last comment…

]]> By: Brian http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-119716 Brian Sat, 20 Sep 2008 07:22:50 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-119716 There are at least two primary kinds of logics that humanity primarily uses today: assuming (assumption) logic and analytical logic. Assuming logic is more right-brain, as it's the taking of something whole all at a time as what must come next. Analytical logic is more left-brain, as it's the taking something in parts to figure out what must come next. Often, both Evolutionists and Creationists tend to do overuse assuming logic and define things as fact all too quickly before having something absolutely conclusive. Where am I going with this? Check the next comment... There are at least two primary kinds of logics that humanity primarily uses today: assuming (assumption) logic and analytical logic. Assuming logic is more right-brain, as it’s the taking of something whole all at a time as what must come next. Analytical logic is more left-brain, as it’s the taking something in parts to figure out what must come next. Often, both Evolutionists and Creationists tend to do overuse assuming logic and define things as fact all too quickly before having something absolutely conclusive. Where am I going with this? Check the next comment…

]]> By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-107780 Torbjörn Larsson, OM Fri, 01 Aug 2008 02:36:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-107780 <blockquote> If they’re not testable, then they’re not science. Dawkins goes overboard in his condemnation of religion </blockquote> The second sentence seems to contradict the first - Dawkins main argument in TGD is testable.

If they’re not testable, then they’re not science.

Dawkins goes overboard in his condemnation of religion

The second sentence seems to contradict the first - Dawkins main argument in TGD is testable.

]]> By: Pieter Kok http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-107491 Pieter Kok Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:59:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-107491 <style> gleep { font-family: sans-serif; font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; }</style> Ah, <gleep>gleep</gleep>? gleep { font-family: sans-serif; font-style: italic; font-size: 100%; }

Ah, gleep?

]]> By: Ken B. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-107471 Ken B. Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:23:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/07/28/angry-astronomy-and-sad-creationism/#comment-107471 Ken B: <blockquote>It's amazing how much of this thread was generated by a single typo.</blockquote>And, as a corollary to the law that states any spelling flame war must contain spelling errors, that statement didn't appear due to my typo. :-) Ken B:

It’s amazing how much of this thread was generated by a single typo.

And, as a corollary to the law that states any spelling flame war must contain spelling errors, that statement didn’t appear due to my typo. :-)

]]>