143 replies to this topic

[Den]

I tell you a true story about a biology teacher,

About 20 years ago, in my year 11 final Biology exams, I along with a number of other students finished the exam early, our biology teacher took us outside to a grassed courtyard and somewhat flexing her ego she said to our group "ask me any scientific question you like and I will give you an answer".

When I had the chance I asked her "why is the sky blue? why isnt is some other colour? why did it have to be blue?"

It caused a bit of a stir amongst my classmates, there seemed to be keen interest in hearing the answer, the teacher gave us a blank expression, and replied "I dont know, I'll have to go ask one of the other teachers"

Anyhow she came back and gave us the answer(which I wont explain here, if you dont know and it interests you Im sure you can google it), which she said came from one of the physics teachers as her collegues in her field of biology were unable to answer the question, quite worrying that this lady spent a year teaching me about carbon dating, the origin of life and species and she doesnt even know why the sky is blue.

As Ive said before, just viewing and cataloguing visible similarities amongst animals to me is a very shallow view of existence, thats why the theory of evolution, while I dont ignore it, does not interest me a great deal.

Cheers
Den

[Donna]

Hi Den,

You are interested, you have brought this matter up a number of times.

Teachers are not scientists, but the act of teaching is both an art and a science. Not knowing the answer to every question does not mean you can't be a good teacher. She modelled good practice for you by Thinking Aloud and telling you she didn't know and would have to go to another source for an answer. Pity you didn't take more notice of the modelling and the process which is more important than the product.

At least now you are leaning more towards a narrative which is a tad more entertaining. I sense you are bored now anyway.

Regards,

Donna

[Jezza]

Curious as to why you think that's any different from a compound absorbing other colours and reflecting only blue, thus making it appear blue?

refraction and reflection are 2 different things...
have you ever played with a glass prism and a torch? you can see the different colours of the light being separated...if you put your head down to where the light comes out of the prism, and if you look in the correct spot the prism will look blue, yet the glass prism is not blue, it is clear glass...
same with the "sky" - if you bottled some of the sky (which you can - just have a bottle with air in it...) it is clear...

a blue object on the other hand absorbs all colours except blue, which it reflects, thus making it appear blue...

[fourdapostle]

Tau5 - if you expect people to read that book, then i expect you to read Jonathan Sarfati's new book: "The greatest hoax on earth: Refuting Dawkins on evolution"

if Dawkins is so sure of himself and his ideas, then why does he refuse to have a debate with Jonathan Sarfati in Melbourne this week coming...
Why? because he knows he can't win...

( http://creation.com/...-earth/main.php )
for more good books or info, see here: http://creation.com

After the intrest shown I thought I would watch the debate which really wasn't a debate at all, it was a side show for a so called 'intellegent' person.
Imo, Dawkins is a person blinded by his own so called 'intelegence', which has made him sound very educated but in my humble opinion, excuse me, but stupid. They load a panel of so called intelegent people who are, but not to the degree necessary to deal with a person who has made a living at making most people seem 'stupid'....blunt words i know...if they disagree with him.
If on the other hand you have a panel who were dedicated to their profession I know he would not have a leg to stand on.
His major statement that showed me his ignorance and contempt in my words 'do you think God if He was God would come and let himself be killed' etc.
If he or any other person cared to study the Torah (first five books of the Bible), they could possibly begin to understand the scriptures and see why God did what He had too....
This debate is as always going around in circles with no rationale to it...just personal opinions....

Hey Den, One day we could have a chat if you really want to...

[Donna]

intelligent

Everyone has a barrow to push...intelligence takes many different forms, however, there are some people while not more intelligent than we are, they are more learned in certain areas.

I find it disturbing that many people do not seem to be able to grasp the crux of the argument that Den has begun. Den will correct me if I am wrong, but all Den suggested was that the concept of Intelligent Design be considered worthy of investigation.

Dawkins has books to sell, and the faithful must bear witness and actively share what they have discovered in taking Jesus as their saviour, however their religion goes. What the individual must do, it find out what is relevant to them, and move on. There are many things we have no unified view of yet, but we are adding all the time using the assistance of instruments that help extend our own five senses.

Regards,

Donna

PS People, if you are going to partake in what is basically an intellectual discussion, at least get your spelling correct. I have nothing against texting and all the forms literacy takes, however, you need to learn to code switch and spell correctly when the need is there. It just undermines your

kredibilaty

[Cawdor]

which she said came from one of the physics teachers as her collegues in her field of biology were unable to answer the question,

That's because it is a physics question. Biology is the study of living things, the sky does not fall into that category. At least she didn't make something up and got you the answer eventually.
It would be like asking a Priest a question about the intricacies of Buddhism.

[theonetruepath]

refraction and reflection are 2 different things...
have you ever played with a glass prism and a torch? you can see the different colours of the light being separated...if you put your head down to where the light comes out of the prism, and if you look in the correct spot the prism will look blue, yet the glass prism is not blue, it is clear glass...
same with the "sky" - if you bottled some of the sky (which you can - just have a bottle with air in it...) it is clear...

a blue object on the other hand absorbs all colours except blue, which it reflects, thus making it appear blue...

I hope they didn't teach you that in school...

The sky being blue has nothing whatsoever to do with refraction. It's blue because short wavelength light is scattered sideways by gas molecules, but longer wavelength light passes straight through. When observing the sky you are not looking directly at the source of light (ie into the Sun) so you see sideways-scattered light which is the short wavelengths ie blue.

This makes the sky blue in almost exactly the same way that an object is blue: The non-blue light being passed through in one case and absorbed in the other, point being you see blue light from each.

Similarly, sunsets are not red because of refraction. With a very clean atmosphere the sunset is yellowish because the same scattering that made it blue when you were looking across the rays from the Sun is now scattering blue light away and leaving everything else. Note that you are looking *toward* the Sun when you look at a sunset. When you see a particularly red sunset what happened is that larger particles in the atmosphere, like smoke and dust, called aerosols, cause the intermediate wavelengths to be scattered as well. Only the longest wavelengths are now left, ie red.

This makes the sky red in almost exactly the same way that a fire engine is red - in both cases only the red light reaches you, other frequencies having been absorbed in one case and scattered away in the other.

It's called Rayleigh scattering BTW.

[Jezza]

The sky being blue has nothing whatsoever to do with refraction. It's blue because short wavelength light is scattered sideways by gas molecules, but longer wavelength light passes straight through. When observing the sky you are not looking directly at the source of light (ie into the Sun) so you see sideways-scattered light which is the short wavelengths ie blue.

that is refraction...
but this is getting off topic...

[theonetruepath]

that is refraction...
but this is getting off topic...

No on both counts. The topic was brought up by OP and you should Google Refraction, Diffraction , Reflection and Rayleigh scattering to give yourself a leg up in arguments involving optics.

[Donna]

It's off the wall, so there is no topic

It's really interesting to see the points people pick up and run with. Really the original topic is quite hard to actually put your finger on anyway

Let the wall, go off I say!

Keep up the interesting posts.

Regards,

Donna

[Jaraqui]

An abounding magnitude of people watch a single video, or see a decurtate clip of Richard Dawkins and consequently "concrete" themselves to a particular opinion (predominantly negative), without accessing further material from him. Reading a book or watching various lectures will further increase their pallate of knowledge, either against him or for, however with sufficient background information!

if Dawkins is so sure of himself and his ideas, then why does he refuse to have a debate with Jonathan Sarfati in Melbourne this week coming...
Why? because he knows he can't win...

Why Richard Dawkins doesn't debate creationists.

After the intrest shown I thought I would watch the debate which really wasn't a debate at all, it was a side show for a so called 'intellegent' person.
Imo, Dawkins is a person blinded by his own so called 'intelegence', which has made him sound very educated but in my humble opinion, excuse me, but stupid.

UC Berkeley Event lecture. Richard Dawkins sounds intelligent, because he is indeed, exactly that. There are many more videos on his channel on Youtube and books he has written, which I do hope, atleast some unbiased people will view.

[Donna]

"Richard Dawkins sounds intelligent, because he is indeed, exactly that"


Funny that. Isn't interesting that you can only rate as intelligent if people agree with you, or you do something that is instantly recognisable as "smart"

[Den]

Hey Den, One day we could have a chat if you really want to...

Sure no worries.

I agree the Q&A show was nothing more than a childish conversation,

Donna the original point was in my orginal post, I merely wanted to point out the contradiction Dawkins made.

Dogma and Evolution are old theories locked in a perpetual argement thats going no-where, if either theory had any credibility the arguement would have been solved decades ago.

Richard Dawkins sounds intelligent, because he is indeed, exactly that.

Dawkins has no problem attacking Religion in his various lectures and he debates uneducated Religious people where ever he gets the chance, I would like to see a debate William Lane Craig vs Dawkins, problem is that Dawkins only goes for soft targets.

Cheers
Den

[Donna]

Of course it was, how stupid of me

Debates I would like to see....mmm, interesting question.

[Jezza]

Why Richard Dawkins doesn't debate creationists.

that made no logical explanation at all...
man can prove that the earth is not flat (we have seen it from space, amongst other ways...), yet NO MAN can prove that creation was not real...

[Donna]

Hi Everyone,

Looks like it's up to a woman then...sounds like "man" hasn't achieved much of anything or maybe some humans could get the job done?

Sorry, just had to slip that one in. would it be possible to refer to humans or humankind? I hate it when the blame for everything gets laid on "man"

Regards,

Donna

[Jaraqui]

yet NO MAN can prove that creation was not real...

I believe Dawkins has done so in his latest book .

[Den]

I take it that those people who follow Dawkins and believe the theory of evolution as fact and explanation for existence have thoroughly researched and understood the opposing academic arguments that are out there?

Tau5 for you to come to that conclusion would it be presumtuous of me to suspect that you have never heard of or listened to other scientists and scholars who have apposing views to Dawkins, to name a few, William Lane Craig, David Berlinski, William F. Buckley Jr, Michael Behe?

Cheers
Den

[werdna]

I take it that whose people who follow Dawkins and believe the theory of evolution as fact and explanation for existence have thoroughly researched and understood the opposing academic arguments that are out there?

Get off it Den.
Are you trying to say that EVERY opinion of yours has been thoroughly researched by you to make sure it is true?
We are not scientists who are specialising in specific fields who spend our lifetimes trying to prove or disprove theories, we are a bunch of people that have gotten together to share a common interest... fish keeping.

I doubt that there is anyone on here that has thoroughly researched both sides of this argument before coming to a decision. It would take years to research all material properly and form an unbiased opinion.
And it will be extremely difficult for anyone who has taken that commitment to still form an unbiased opinion as I doubt anyone will start the research with no opinion.

Read Hawkins book, he admits to spending years trying to prove theories to other scholars, after 10 years they start to be accepted, then he discovers another theory, and cant convince the same scholars that he was wrong.

This argument is going to get no where, we are all too biased in my opinion.
I would be amazed if one person changes sides. No one did from the last time this subject came up.

Andrew

[Jaraqui]

I couldn't agree more with the post above.

Tau5 for you to come to that conclusion would it be presumtuous of me to suspect that you have never heard of or listened to other scientists and scholars who have apposing views to Dawkins, to name a few, William Lane Craig, David Berlinski, William F. Buckley Jr, Michael Behe?

To borrow from a ramarkably ridiculous excuse for staying oblivious...

After watching Dawkins in numerous interviews and debates I've never heard Dawkins say anything new or interesting enough to inspire me to read his work.

After watching various creationists and theologians in numerous interviews and debates, I've never heard them say anything new or interesting enough to inspire me to listen or read more from them.