Page 1 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Mar 2010, 10:39 am

I am currently reading a book called Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson. Red Mars is the first book in a trilogy regarding the colonization and transformation via terraforming of Mars, but it is not just about the cool scientific aspect. Instead, it also has to do with social politics of the colonists... Blarg. To add to that, there is unnecessary sexual garbage and anti-theistic propaganda. ... why can't it just be about the cool science involved in space flight and terraforming? Why does it have to have an admixture of fecal matter included? Oh well, I suppose everything has some type of fault.



saintetienne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jun 2008
Age: 113
Gender: Male
Posts: 387

11 Mar 2010, 11:01 am

write a letter to the author and try to get him to re-write it



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Mar 2010, 11:13 am

saintetienne wrote:
write a letter to the author and try to get him to re-write it


Nah, he wrote it in the early 90's... about two decades ago... he's probably forgotten the science by now but kept the other stuff.



saintetienne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jun 2008
Age: 113
Gender: Male
Posts: 387

11 Mar 2010, 11:49 am

get a black pen and scribble out the bits you don't like



pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

11 Mar 2010, 12:14 pm

Ah yes, actually it's a 4-book trilogy...;) Red, Blue, Green mars, then I forget the name of the last one. I think it was more of a political novel than anything else. I read all 4, but it really didn't always hold my interest.


_________________
anahl nathrak, uth vas bethude, doth yel dyenvey...


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Mar 2010, 12:48 pm

pakled wrote:
Ah yes, actually it's a 4-book trilogy...;) Red, Blue, Green mars, then I forget the name of the last one. I think it was more of a political novel than anything else. I read all 4, but it really didn't always hold my interest.


There's a compilation of short stories about the colonists, called The Martians, which I also have... are you sure there's a fourth book in sequence after the books Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars? Indigo Mars?



WoundedDog
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York City

11 Mar 2010, 12:51 pm

I enjoyed the trilogy. Alot of the social politics and human behavior are actually pretty feasible and make for some compelling twists later on. At least, I felt that way. Get through the first half of Red Mars and it really starts to pick up steam.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Mar 2010, 2:22 pm

WoundedDog wrote:
I enjoyed the trilogy. Alot of the social politics and human behavior are actually pretty feasible and make for some compelling twists later on. At least, I felt that way. Get through the first half of Red Mars and it really starts to pick up steam.


Okay, thanks for the advice. I bought the trilogy because I needed something to read that I wasn't getting tested on and it has been a while since I read a good sci-fi novel. The strawman argument Robinson gave through Phylis and atheistic triumphalistic mockery by John Boone on pages 51 through 53 were kind of a What-The-Farce moment for me, but I'll take your word for it that it gets better after the first half is over. Or do you mean that the story just picks up steam, gets on it way, after the characters have been developed? Am I to expect more mockery of Christianity or the like after that point?



ValMikeSmith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 977
Location: Stranger in a strange land

11 Mar 2010, 2:28 pm

For a clear explanation of why there is atheism embedded in the science,
see a video called EXPELLED! NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED by Ben Stein.

It is a documentary about Evolutionary Extremism and even has the
"leader" or "Supreme Evolutionist" admitting the fact that the earth is
not even old enough to evolve one human cell, so extraterrestrials
that started evolving during the Big Bang must have wrote the
Genetic Code and planted it here.
(But isn't god an extraterrestrial? People usually point upward to them.
Jews Christians Moslems Atheists all so agree the universe began with
a big bright flash. (um... there's no sound in space so no "bang".) )

The title investigates why scientists have been slandered and fired for
even accidentally hinting that their research and discoveries disprove
that life was started by lightning striking a puddle of primordial soup.

Sorry I don't remember the name of that scientist ("supreme evolutionist"),
but he is second to Darwin in fame associated with evolution.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Mar 2010, 2:34 pm

ValMikeSmith wrote:
For a clear explanation of why there is atheism embedded in the science,
see a video called EXPELLED! NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED by Ben Stein.

It is a documentary about Evolutionary Extremism and even has the
"leader" or "Supreme Evolutionist" admitting the fact that the earth is
not even old enough to evolve one human cell, so extraterrestrials
that started evolving during the Big Bang must have wrote the
Genetic Code and planted it here.
(But isn't god an extraterrestrial? People usually point upward to them.
Jews Christians Moslems Atheists all so agree the universe began with
a big bright flash. (um... there's no sound in space so no "bang".) )

The title investigates why scientists have been slandered and fired for
even accidentally hinting that their research and discoveries disprove
that life was started by lightning striking a puddle of primordial soup.

Sorry I don't remember the name of that scientist ("supreme evolutionist"),
but he is second to Darwin in fame associated with evolution.


Are you serious or are you attempting satire? I really can't tell...



WoundedDog
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York City

11 Mar 2010, 3:01 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Okay, thanks for the advice. I bought the trilogy because I needed something to read that I wasn't getting tested on and it has been a while since I read a good sci-fi novel. The strawman argument Robinson gave through Phylis and atheistic triumphalistic mockery by John Boone on pages 51 through 53 were kind of a What-The-Farce moment for me, but I'll take your word for it that it gets better after the first half is over. Or do you mean that the story just picks up steam, gets on it way, after the characters have been developed? Am I to expect more mockery of Christianity or the like after that point?


Well, each character is a bit of a caricature of their respective point of view. Their ideals mark their actions later on, or not (which may lead to some surprises).

But what I meant was that after the initial character development, exciting things start happening.



Willard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,647

11 Mar 2010, 3:59 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Are you serious or are you attempting satire? I really can't tell...


ExplelledWebsite wrote:
The Issue:

The freedom to legitimately challenge “Big Science’s” orthodoxy…without persecution.
The debate over evolution is confusing and to some, bewildering: “Wasn’t this all settled years ago?” The answer to that question is equally troubling: “Yes…and no.”

The truth is that a staggering amount of new scientific evidence has emerged since Darwin’s 150-year-old theory of life’s origins. Darwin had no concept of DNA, microbiology, The Big Bang, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or of the human genome.

Each of these discoveries has, in one way or another, led a growing number of scientists to reconsider the simple view espoused by Darwin that life is a random, purposeless, chance occurrence. The universe, and life itself – is turning out to be far more complex and mysterious – than Darwin could possibly have imagined.

Darwin’s theory isn’t a single idea. Instead, it is made up of several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments. Of the three, only Evolution #1 can be said to be scientifically “settled.”

* Evolution #1: First, evolution can mean minor changes in features of individual species – changes that take place gradually over a (relatively) modest period of time.

* Evolution #2: The Theory of Universal Common Descent - the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree, from a single cell that “somehow” materialized.

* Evolution #3: A cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo – Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts.

When you see the word “evolution.” You should ask yourself, “Which of the three definitions is being used?” Because arguments and evidence supporting #1 do not support #2 or #3!
What Is Intelligent Design?

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” rejects the notion that “the case is closed,” and exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy.
The Controversy

The American public’s awareness and beliefs vis-à-vis our government’s expanding role in defining the curriculum in America’s schools, universities and institutions of science.

Neo-Darwinian theory contends that life is the result of a random, purposeless process.

Neo – Darwinian theory is taught in schools as if it is the only plausible scientific explanation of how life originated and developed. Yet Intelligent Design theory has recently emerged to challenge neo-Darwinian theory.

Both are scientific theories, and the debate is therefore legitimate. Why is the debate being suppressed?

At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?
Question #1:

Knowing this - should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nation’s public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?
Question #2:

There is growing support among scientists that there is evidence of intelligent design operating in nature. Yet these scientists, researchers and educators are being routinely persecuted for their scientific views. Who is behind this persecution? Why is this happening in America? How did this situation develop?
Question #3:

Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” presents a point-of-view so powerful, that it
literally forces a re-examination of these issues.
What’s At Stake

We all know that ideas have consequences.

And our country was founded on principles of free and open debate.

The differences between these two worldviews are certainly consequential. So…why the suppression of scientific debate?

If in our publicly funded schools, universities and institutions our children continue to be taught only this: that all life on earth is the result of a purposeless, meaningless and undirected process of random mutation and natural selection…

What are the consequences over time of teaching this one-sided worldview as if it were fact rather than theory?

* How will ideas of morality change, if life is thought to be purposeless and undirected?
* How will the role of Government change, if the individual is taught by The State that one is accountable only to ones self?
* How will the role of “science” change, if “Big Science” alone determines our worldview?

Such a change in our government’s official policy represents a deeply troubling shift in our cultural identity and a radical departure from the very principles upon which our country was built. America is the first Democracy that was founded on the distinctive worldview that “a Creator” conferred “inalienable rights” on human beings, rather than the State, or another institution, such as “Big Science.”

So…how was it decided that the teaching of such a profoundly different worldview should become the official position of the United States of America’s public institutions?
Who was behind the decision? And…why?

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” looks to scientists on both sides of the issue…and reveals some truly shocking answers.



ExpelledTheMovie.Com



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Mar 2010, 4:03 pm

Willard wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Are you serious or are you attempting satire? I really can't tell...


ExplelledWebsite wrote:
The Issue:

The freedom to legitimately challenge “Big Science’s” orthodoxy…without persecution.
The debate over evolution is confusing and to some, bewildering: “Wasn’t this all settled years ago?” The answer to that question is equally troubling: “Yes…and no.”

The truth is that a staggering amount of new scientific evidence has emerged since Darwin’s 150-year-old theory of life’s origins. Darwin had no concept of DNA, microbiology, The Big Bang, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or of the human genome.

Each of these discoveries has, in one way or another, led a growing number of scientists to reconsider the simple view espoused by Darwin that life is a random, purposeless, chance occurrence. The universe, and life itself – is turning out to be far more complex and mysterious – than Darwin could possibly have imagined.

Darwin’s theory isn’t a single idea. Instead, it is made up of several related ideas, each supported by specific arguments. Of the three, only Evolution #1 can be said to be scientifically “settled.”

* Evolution #1: First, evolution can mean minor changes in features of individual species – changes that take place gradually over a (relatively) modest period of time.

* Evolution #2: The Theory of Universal Common Descent - the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree, from a single cell that “somehow” materialized.

* Evolution #3: A cause or mechanism of change, the biological process Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo – Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts.

When you see the word “evolution.” You should ask yourself, “Which of the three definitions is being used?” Because arguments and evidence supporting #1 do not support #2 or #3!
What Is Intelligent Design?

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” rejects the notion that “the case is closed,” and exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy.
The Controversy

The American public’s awareness and beliefs vis-à-vis our government’s expanding role in defining the curriculum in America’s schools, universities and institutions of science.

Neo-Darwinian theory contends that life is the result of a random, purposeless process.

Neo – Darwinian theory is taught in schools as if it is the only plausible scientific explanation of how life originated and developed. Yet Intelligent Design theory has recently emerged to challenge neo-Darwinian theory.

Both are scientific theories, and the debate is therefore legitimate. Why is the debate being suppressed?

At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?
Question #1:

Knowing this - should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nation’s public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?
Question #2:

There is growing support among scientists that there is evidence of intelligent design operating in nature. Yet these scientists, researchers and educators are being routinely persecuted for their scientific views. Who is behind this persecution? Why is this happening in America? How did this situation develop?
Question #3:

Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” presents a point-of-view so powerful, that it
literally forces a re-examination of these issues.
What’s At Stake

We all know that ideas have consequences.

And our country was founded on principles of free and open debate.

The differences between these two worldviews are certainly consequential. So…why the suppression of scientific debate?

If in our publicly funded schools, universities and institutions our children continue to be taught only this: that all life on earth is the result of a purposeless, meaningless and undirected process of random mutation and natural selection…

What are the consequences over time of teaching this one-sided worldview as if it were fact rather than theory?

* How will ideas of morality change, if life is thought to be purposeless and undirected?
* How will the role of Government change, if the individual is taught by The State that one is accountable only to ones self?
* How will the role of “science” change, if “Big Science” alone determines our worldview?

Such a change in our government’s official policy represents a deeply troubling shift in our cultural identity and a radical departure from the very principles upon which our country was built. America is the first Democracy that was founded on the distinctive worldview that “a Creator” conferred “inalienable rights” on human beings, rather than the State, or another institution, such as “Big Science.”

So…how was it decided that the teaching of such a profoundly different worldview should become the official position of the United States of America’s public institutions?
Who was behind the decision? And…why?

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” looks to scientists on both sides of the issue…and reveals some truly shocking answers.



ExpelledTheMovie.Com


Congratulations, you've learned how to copy and paste. Gold star for you.



Willard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,647

11 Mar 2010, 6:16 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Congratulations, you've learned how to copy and paste. Gold star for you.


Don't ask questions you're too smug and arrogant to want actual answers to.



Ambivalence
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,613
Location: Peterlee (for Industry)

11 Mar 2010, 6:46 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
a good sci-fi novel


That's oxymoronic. Happily, the Mars trilogy is reasonably hard sf, not sci-fi.


_________________
No one has gone missing or died.

The year is still young.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Mar 2010, 8:19 pm

Willard wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Congratulations, you've learned how to copy and paste. Gold star for you.


Don't ask questions you're too smug and arrogant to want actual answers to.


Is your username ValMikeSmith?



cron