Log in

No account? Create an account
Steve Likes to Curse
Writing, comics and random thoughts from really a rather vulgar man
The summary of life's evolution on Earth, courtesy of Carl Sagan 
Friday, April 11th, 2008 | 03:18 pm [education, science, video]
Since evolution vs. creationism seems to be the topic of the week here (that, and homeschooling), it seemed appropriate to post this video, a clip from episode two of Cosmos, "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue." Here, Carl Sagan explains — by way of a very general summary — the story of the evolution of life on Earth so that anyone can understand it. It's something everyone ought to see, be they creationist or scientist or none of the above:

Friday, April 11th, 2008 | 08:14 pm (UTC)
i want to see the next 4 billion years.
Friday, April 11th, 2008 | 08:23 pm (UTC)
Cute video.

The video shows the current consensus of science. Until it is proved wrong we should teach this Science religion in schools. I guess we'll have to take this on FAITH. Well at least it is an explanation.

Investigating the thread of logic behind this and the assumptions behind evolution, I wouldn't take a bet in Vegas that this is all true. I probably won't be proved right in my lifetime, so I guess the bet is pretty bad idea.

Science just doesn't have an answer to this most fundamental question. Just because science can make thread that explains evolution, and can partially replicate experiments in the thread, doesn't mean it is fact. Evolution is an interesting theory that is certainly mostly wrong.

After all scientists did prove the world was flat. Good thing the scientists are much smarter now.
Friday, April 11th, 2008 | 09:02 pm (UTC)
A few questions:

Evolution is not "the current consensus of science," it has been the unchallenged bedrock of modern biology since before either of us were born. It has been tested and re-tested, refined here and there when necessary, making it one of the strongest scientific theories ever constructed. It is not based on faith, but on fact. So, why is science's ability to correct its mistakes a weakness? Doesn't the fact that science is self-correcting and open to new discoveries sort of deflate the old creationist argument that science is just as dogmatic and religious as Christianity?

On what basis do you say that evolution is "certainly mostly wrong?" What does it get right, in your opinion?

When did scientists ever prove the Earth was flat? When did ANYONE ever prove the Earth was flat, for that matter? Eratosthenes, who was a Greek scientist in the 3rd century B.C., not only proved that the Earth was round, but also calculated the Earth's circumference to a startling degree of accuracy, considering he did it pretty must using a stick, the Sun, and a little geometry.

In other words, the Earth was proven to be spherical and even properly measured over a millenium before the dawn of modern science, a proof yet to be refuted. So, what the hell are you talking about?
Friday, April 11th, 2008 | 11:31 pm (UTC)
Claiming something is fact more and more and louder and louder does not make it fact. I don't think you've been swayed at all by the Christians.

Try and run through the simple probability of having the correct mixture of chemicals together with energy to create the first one cell life form. Are you saying with infinite time and combinations anything can happen? I guess we've been very lucky.

Where did all the missing links between man's common ancestor with apes go? Educate me, we have dinosaur bones. Why aren't there as many remnants of the missing link?

Science is a useful tool to explain things. Creation and evolution just haven't produced enough evidence. A theory is in place, but consensus and fights with Christians have stopped the scientists from improving the theory or providing new theories. But as your argument says, it's proven true.

I can easily follow the logic of evolution, but if I critically look at it the evidence is pretty shaky. I can make it work if I assume evolution is correct. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. My issue is the evedence that is missing that should be there is still pretty large.
Saturday, April 12th, 2008 | 03:48 pm (UTC)
The lack of transitional fossils doesn't disprove evolution. The fact that we have as many fossils as we do is kind of amazing, actually, given how difficult they are to make. Our museums are full of dinosaur bones, so we assume fossils must be plentiful, but actually it's the exact opposite. Fossils of any kind are incredibly rare. It's not surprising at all that we haven't found the missing links between our proto-human ancestors and us.

We do have transitional fossils of other species, which proves that the concept is sound.
Saturday, April 12th, 2008 | 10:17 pm (UTC)
Anonymous wrote:
After all scientists did prove the world was flat. Good thing the scientists are much smarter now.
Actually, the notion that the world was flat came from the holy Bible. The Word of God constantly referred to the earth as being flat and having four corners.
Friday, April 11th, 2008 | 08:38 pm (UTC)
Wow, Steve, you do an amazing job of attracting the most backwards-thinking lunatics of our great country to join together in one place, that being the comments page of your blog. It continues to fascinate me, almost as much as the posts themselves. Wow.
Friday, April 11th, 2008 | 08:55 pm (UTC)
What can I tell you? I'm a lucky, lucky man.

This is what I get for posting dirty jokes and profane Star Trek comics the other 75% of the time, I guess.
Friday, April 11th, 2008 | 10:11 pm (UTC)
This is my favorite of Carl's:

I will never understand how we humans can believe we a) predict anything since we really haven't been around that long, and b) how we can believe we're the center of the Universe.
Friday, April 11th, 2008 | 11:51 pm (UTC)
I knew I like Ben Stein he says it better than I just did. I wouldn't have bothered with my post if I would have seen this clip earlier.

This page was loaded Sep 24th 2017, 10:27 am GMT.