I'm reminded of this marvelous quote from Peter Medawar:
The spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.
This comes from perhaps the greatest negative book review of all time. It's worth reading:
Runtu wrote:I'm reminded of this marvelous quote from Peter Medawar:
The spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.
This comes from perhaps the greatest negative book review of all time. It's worth reading:
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Milesius wrote:Incidentally, Forrest is the same pretentious moron who claimed that "Evolution...is at the center of...much physical science (as in geology)..." which is pure flatulence.*
*Full quotation, from an op-ed she wrote with Paul Gross to a Dover area newspaper back in 2004:
Evolution, on the other hand, is at the center of all life science, much physical science (as in geology), and applied fields such as medicine and agriculture.
But Forrest is right: it's impossible to fully understand geology without also understanding biological evolution. For instance, the evolution of photosynthesizing microorganisms changed the composition of the atmosphere drastically. The evolution of plants with root structures changed the rates and effects of erosion. The evolution of certain molluscs changed the way sediments are deposited on the seafloor.
Furthermore, geologists often must reference evolution in order to properly date strata. A common line of reasoning in geology goes like this: "This strata contains organism X. Organism X could not have evolved from any organisms present in the area before the masses were joined, but instead appears to belong to a clade of organisms present only on the other land mass. We can therefore infer that organism X was not present in this area until after the joining of two land masses at date Y. Therefore this strata must be younger than date Y."
Milesius wrote:Incidentally, Forrest is the same pretentious moron who claimed that "Evolution...is at the center of...much physical science (as in geology)..." which is pure flatulence.*
*Full quotation, from an op-ed she wrote with Paul Gross to a Dover area newspaper back in 2004:
Evolution, on the other hand, is at the center of all life science, much physical science (as in geology), and applied fields such as medicine and agriculture.
But Forrest is right: it's impossible to fully understand geology without also understanding biological evolution. For instance, the evolution of photosynthesizing microorganisms changed the composition of the atmosphere drastically. The evolution of plants with root structures changed the rates and effects of erosion. The evolution of certain molluscs changed the way sediments are deposited on the seafloor.
Furthermore, geologists often must reference evolution in order to properly date strata. A common line of reasoning in geology goes like this: "This strata contains organism X. Organism X could not have evolved from any organisms present in the area before the masses were joined, but instead appears to belong to a clade of organisms present only on the other land mass. We can therefore infer that organism X was not present in this area until after the joining of two land masses at date Y. Therefore this strata must be younger than date Y."
Anything else you want me to tutor you on?
No, she is not. For geology, it matters not one whit how photosynthesizing organisms got here, just that they got here and when (i.e., a long time ago). The same principles of geology would hold if photosynthesizing organisms arose through several acts of special creation and the same techniques would be used if common descent were blanked from everyone's mind tomorrow. Moreover, if you visited the methane-breathers of the planet Zetar (perhaps you have already, via the bong) you would find that the science of geology exactly the same there because the principles of geology do not depend on any evolutionary trajectory (because they don't depend on evolutionary biology at all).
Runtu wrote:I'm reminded of this marvelous quote from Peter Medawar:
The spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.
This comes from perhaps the greatest negative book review of all time. It's worth reading:
My two favorite quotes are, not surprisingly, about two of my pet peeves: 1) people with some science background assuming an aura of authority about all branches of science, and 2) obtuse and inaccessible prose masquerading as scholarship.
Laymen firmly believe that scientists are one species of person. They are not to know that different branches of science require very different aptitudes and degrees of skill for their prosecution.
It is written in an all but totally unintelligible style, and this is construed as prima-facie evidence of profundity. .... It is because Teilhard has such wonderful deep thoughts that he's so difficult to follow --- really it's beyond my poor brain but doesn't that just show how profound and important it must be?
JohnStuartMill wrote:But Forrest is right: it's impossible to fully understand geology without also understanding biological evolution. For instance, the evolution of photosynthesizing microorganisms changed the composition of the atmosphere drastically. The evolution of plants with root structures changed the rates and effects of erosion. The evolution of certain molluscs changed the way sediments are deposited on the seafloor.
Furthermore, geologists often must reference evolution in order to properly date strata. A common line of reasoning in geology goes like this: "This strata contains organism X. Organism X could not have evolved from any organisms present in the area before the masses were joined, but instead appears to belong to a clade of organisms present only on the other land mass. We can therefore infer that organism X was not present in this area until after the joining of two land masses at date Y. Therefore this strata must be younger than date Y."
Anything else you want me to tutor you on?
No, she is not. For geology, it matters not one whit how photosynthesizing organisms got here, just that they got here and when (i.e., a long time ago). The same principles of geology would hold if photosynthesizing organisms arose through several acts of special creation and the same techniques would be used if common descent were blanked from everyone's mind tomorrow. Moreover, if you visited the methane-breathers of the planet Zetar (perhaps you have already, via the bong) you would find that the science of geology exactly the same there because the principles of geology do not depend on any evolutionary trajectory (because they don't depend on evolutionary biology at all).
This is just false. Evolution matters for geology because life is in a dynamic relationship with geology -- each causes and is caused by the other -- and evolution accounts for the history and variegation of life better than anything else. You can dispute whether this means evolution is "central" to geology, but to deny that it is a necessary component is a position no more intellectually respectable than young-Earth creationism. And don't think I didn't notice that you failed to address my second paragraph entirely.
The bottom line is, people who don't understand that evolution is a fact don't get to call themselves scientists. You can use polysyllabic Latin-derived words all you want, but if you don't understand how the universe is organized, you're just stamp-collecting.
Milesius wrote: No, she is not. For geology, it matters not one whit how photosynthesizing organisms got here, just that they got here and when (i.e., a long time ago). The same principles of geology would hold if photosynthesizing organisms arose through several acts of special creation and the same techniques would be used if common descent were blanked from everyone's mind tomorrow. Moreover, if you visited the methane-breathers of the planet Zetar (perhaps you have already, via the bong) you would find that the science of geology exactly the same there because the principles of geology do not depend on any evolutionary trajectory (because they don't depend on evolutionary biology at all).
I'm afraid it's you vs the educated people on this one.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Evolution is very much like gravity, law and theory. There is no dispute whatsoever that species evolve into other species, and this accounts for the diversity of life on earth. The theory of evolution explains how it happened, not that it happened. That it happened is just as much a fact as the fact that gravity is a functioning force.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Milesius wrote:No, she is not. For geology, it matters not one whit how photosynthesizing organisms got here, just that they got here and when (i.e., a long time ago). The same principles of geology would hold if photosynthesizing organisms arose through several acts of special creation and the same techniques would be used if common descent were blanked from everyone's mind tomorrow. Moreover, if you visited the methane-breathers of the planet Zetar (perhaps you have already, via the bong) you would find that the science of geology exactly the same there because the principles of geology do not depend on any evolutionary trajectory (because they don't depend on evolutionary biology at all).
This is just false. Evolution matters for geology because life is in a dynamic relationship with geology -- each causes and is caused by the other -- and evolution accounts for the history and variegation of life better than anything else. You can dispute whether this means evolution is "central" to geology, but to deny that it is a necessary component is a position no more intellectually respectable than young-Earth creationism.
Wrong. Geology is the same whether life evolved or was the result of several successive creative acts. That is why OEC's are just as comfortable being geologists as those who accept evolutionary theory. (FYI, the principles of geology would also apply to a dead/barren planet.)
And don't think I didn't notice that you failed to address my second paragraph entirely.
It wasn't worth responding to, like most of your posts directed at me.
1. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.
Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.
2. The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.
The bottom line is, people who don't understand that evolution is a fact don't get to call themselves scientists. You can use polysyllabic Latin-derived words all you want, but if you don't understand how the universe is organized, you're just stamp-collecting.
No, the bottom line is that I am a scientist because I do science and you are not a scientist because you do not do science. Your opinion to the contrary and two dimes would not get me a gumball from a gumball machine.
Milesius wrote: No, she is not. For geology, it matters not one whit how photosynthesizing organisms got here, just that they got here and when (i.e., a long time ago). The same principles of geology would hold if photosynthesizing organisms arose through several acts of special creation and the same techniques would be used if common descent were blanked from everyone's mind tomorrow. Moreover, if you visited the methane-breathers of the planet Zetar (perhaps you have already, via the bong) you would find that the science of geology exactly the same there because the principles of geology do not depend on any evolutionary trajectory (because they don't depend on evolutionary biology at all).
I'm afraid it's you vs the educated people on this one.