Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14605IS NOT KNOWING SOMETHING A SIGN OF WEAKNESS? CREATIONISTS THINK SO

Expand Messages
  • nathaniel x vance
    May 24, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
       
      Dear Group,
      Please pardon me for posting this very important post, as its’ relevancy is a
      little ahead of the Time, but anyway I thought or hope that we all should be
      interested in what is soon to occur in our near future regarding the truth how
      our Cosmos work, as to be presented by this fellow brother man, astrophysicist
      and scientist Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson.
      My question to all is this; Are any of you psychically aware
      of who this beloved individual is and what his life mission is regarding real
      extraterrestrial Aliens, interstellar UFOs, Earthchange Awareness, and the
      coming prophesied Poleshift???
      Without a doubt - like president Barak Obama, Albert
      Einstein or the present beloved Pope Francis, do you agree that it does
      indelibly appear that this man is also on some kind of divine assisted
      mission??
      Thanks
      -
       
       
      Is Not
      Knowing Something A Sign of Weakness? Creationists Think So
      The anti-science patrol is again attacking Neil deGrasse
      Tyson, this time over his take on the origins of life, the economy and
      climate change.
      May 21, 2014 |  
       
      Those who reject science frown upon intellectual honesty. Not knowing how
      something works or happened is seen as a weakness. This week on Cosmos,
      Neil deGrasse Tyson said the word “somehow” when describing how the origins of
      life began, saying, “Somehow, carbon-rich molecules began using energy to make
      copies of themselves.”
      Creationists think they “got him!” Tyson, like all other scientists, is not
      sure exactly how life originated on earth. This is intellectually honest, since
      a great mystery is still being worked out. Many great hypotheses exist, some of
      which Tyson went into detail about, but how can not knowing something be a
      weakness? Surely all of us don’t know a great deal of things; are we all
      intellectually challenged?
      The real answer is no, the real knowledge is accepting that there are things
      you don’t know. If you claim to have all the answers, as creationists love to
      do, you are being dishonest. There is no wisdom in pretending to know things
      you do not know.
      One hypothesis Tyson spent a great deal of time on is called panspermia.
      Again, this is nothing but a hypothesis with an okay amount of evidence being
      collected and studied. The Mars Rover is one major example of our study of the
      origins of life.
      Of course, the anti-science fellows over at the Discovery Institute take
      issue:
      “After some passing references to
      Earth-based models of the origin of life (which of course omit any mention of
      intelligent design as a possibility), Tyson devotes two lengthy segments of the
      episode to panspermia -- the idea that life arrived on Earth from space -- and
      the existence of alien life.”
      However this is not what Tyson
      said, nor suggested. He briefly brushed over the idea that life could have
      originated on a planet like Mars and been carried to earth during a massive
      impact in the distant past, but he didn’t stay here long and moved onto a more
      plausible explanation. Of course, creationists stopped listening here.
      Tyson seems to come back to saying
      life originated on earth and then gives a great explanation for it surviving so
      many extinction-causing impacts on earth, explaining that life could have been
      shot into space on rocks. We have evidence to suggest microbial life can do a
      very fine job of surviving such a journey, and eventually these rocks can find
      themselves impacting with earth again, bringing life back to the planet.
      Here is a key part creationists
      missed: Tyson never once made the claim these are scientific facts, just that
      they are reasonable explanations. The Discovery Institute took immediate issue
      with Tyson never suggesting life was intelligently created on earth, but why
      would he? What scientific basis does that fall under? They find it a stretch
      that life can originate on its own, yet they can concede that some invisible
      being can just randomly create life.
      Every single suggestion Tyson put
      forward in this episode has some reasonable amount of scientific data behind it
      to make it worth mentioning. The scientific evidence that a god created
      anything, or even exists, is zero.
      While panspermia is not the
      be-all-end-all of scientific explanations for the origins of life, Tyson is
      proposing that viewers open up their imaginations to all the possibilities of
      nature. If every event after the origin of life has a natural explanation, it
      is more than reasonable and logical to assume that events before do as well.
      The folks at the Discovery
      Institute also took strong issue with Tyson's view on the economy and the
      industrialized world's impact on the climate:
       
      http://www.alternet.org/belief/not-knowing-something-sign-weakness-creationists-think-so?akid=11844.268655.rvKH5h&rd=1&src=newsletter995794&t=4
       

      http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TheEndTime2012/info


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]