RE: Science proves creatinists wrong.

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 9:17:40 AM)
quote: Philosophy isn't science. So the solution doesn't lie in teaching Idealism in science classes. But I do think it merits being made clear to students that the conclusions which many people draw from science are not in themselves scientific. Rather, they reflect a particular philosophical position regarding the ultimate nature of reality. @ Kirata I agree with what you say here. I always tried to point out to my students that there was no known hypothesis testing for the reality of God, without getting involved in the issues of lack of evidence being evidence. However, where we have a slight disagreement is that since the essence of science and its methods incorporate a paradigm of materialism, a judgment on the ultimate nature of reality is inherent within. Otherwise, one must make a new age, mystical leap from quantum physics to a non-materialist nature of reality. Understanding of course that many people use avenues other than science to make their judgments.

Nosathro -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 10:04:08 AM)
1+1 could = 100. depends on the number base you're using. True, however base 10 is the standard one we use, which is what I was using.

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 11:10:15 AM)
quote: Yup but many wuz still religious an' didn't see a conflict there. You mean they believed in the polytheistic gods . . . Zeus, Athena, Neptune ? The ancients were natural philosophers btw, not scientists. Big difference. quote: Can't compare positively but equally can't do it negatively after ya described nature as deadly. But I was not making any comparison; I was only remarking on what is self-evident: Nature kills millions and millions of innocent people and leaves many to struggle through their final years as feeble and fragile invalids tormented by pain. I fail to see how you can call that the best of all possible worlds . . . which btw was Voltaire's ironic response to the Lisbon earthquake that killed 30,000 in their churches on a Sunday morning in 1730 (?)

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 11:19:59 AM)
quote: I really do not understand the hysteria. There are known gaps in Darwinian model, why not to discuss it at schools including the creationism? I think standardizing the education process, and Soviet style technocratism are wrong. After all, our goal is (or should be) independently thinking students. There are of course problems with teachers own education and such. Actually, any gaps that may exist are in the paleontological evidence not in the Darwinian model which seems to be supported by genome research which finds commonalities among the species. The concern arises when local politicians discourage textbook publishers from including Darwinism and natural selection and from their aggressive attempt to inject the pseudoscience Intelligent Design in the biology classroom as an "alternative." I thought I was pretty clear about that. You really might benefit from reading Fitzmiller v Dover which I cited above.

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 11:24:12 AM)
quote: I have a feeling some want to selectively teach particular theories. The science class in my view should teach primarily scientific method, major (prevailing today) theories should be presented with evidence, and the alternatives can be discussed. There is nothing wrong mentioning biblical theories in right context. Biblical theories are not alternatives to Models arrived at through sorting and falsifying ideas based on empirical data. The right context for biblical theories is in church or sunday school, not in the biology classroom of a public school.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 11:55:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Yup but many wuz still religious an' didn't see a conflict there. You mean they believed in the polytheistic gods . . . Zeus, Athena, Neptune ? The ancients were natural philosophers btw, not scientists. Big difference. Nut jus' talkin bout da early philosophers. same point bein' made no matter if its da polys or da monos! quote: quote: Can't compare positively but equally can't do it negatively after ya described nature as deadly. But I was not making any comparison; I was only remarking on what is self-evident: Nature kills millions and millions of innocent people and leaves many to struggle through their final years as feeble and fragile invalids tormented by pain. I fail to see how you can call that the best of all possible worlds . . . which btw was Voltaire's ironic response to the Lisbon earthquake that killed 30,000 in their churches on a Sunday morning in 1730 (?) play me a teeny violin! oh wait ya can! Da point is ya said nature is deadly, cruel and so on. ya forget it gives life in da first place an' dat cruelty is often dere ta maintain balance. Da incident wit man is not relevant to da point nut bein' in a state of nature. Nut sayin' it is da best of all worlds, just dat da theory cant be refuted by wat ya said so fur. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I always tried to point out to my students that there was no known hypothesis testing for the reality of God, without getting involved in the issues of lack of evidence being evidence. Waz dat again? [8\|]

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 12:18:04 PM)
quote: play me a teeny violin! oh wait ya can! Da point is ya said nature is deadly, cruel and so on. ya forget it gives life in da first place an' dat cruelty is often dere ta maintain balance. Da incident wit man is not relevant to da point nut bein' in a state of nature. Nut sayin' it is da best of all worlds, just dat da theory cant be refuted by wat ya said so fur. Cruelty is there to maintain balance?? WTf? Suffering is okay? Suffering is a compensation for life? Shall they be grateful for a life of sorrows? Because their reward is in Heaven maybe? Shit![:'(] quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I always tried to point out to my students that there was no known hypothesis testing for the reality of God, without getting involved in the issues of lack of evidence being evidence. WOTF: Waz dat again? Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 4:51:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: play me a teeny violin! oh wait ya can! Da point is ya said nature is deadly, cruel and so on. ya forget it gives life in da first place an' dat cruelty is often dere ta maintain balance. Da incident wit man is not relevant to da point nut bein' in a state of nature. Nut sayin' it is da best of all worlds, just dat da theory cant be refuted by wat ya said so fur. Cruelty is there to maintain balance?? WTf? Suffering is okay? Suffering is a compensation for life? Shall they be grateful for a life of sorrows? Because their reward is in Heaven maybe? Shit![:'(] nut talkin' bout da heavenly reward. jus' sayin' da argument bout da possibiliy of dis being da best of all worlds but allowin' for da will ta be free. yup not pleasant but harsh natural environments serve a need where da materials for life are limited. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I always tried to point out to my students that there was no known hypothesis testing for the reality of God, without getting involved in the issues of lack of evidence being evidence WOTF: Waz dat again? Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist. cant see how lack of proof is proof. dude A or B killed dude C. No evidence dude A did da deed so dats proof dude B did?

PeonForHer -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 5:22:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist. I think that's all down to the question of 'how much time in your life do you want to piss away thinking about bugger all that's of any use or consequence?', Vincent. God-bangers want to irritate scientists by using scientists' own, honourable, rules against them - despite the fact that they, the god-bangers, hold to no such principles themselves whatsoever. Me, I can't prove that God doesn't exist. I can't prove that giant crocodiles in pink hats who play the banjo while skateboarding on Mars don't exist either. However, I can't be arsed to consider either matter whatsoever. That is the sum total of anyone's intellectual abilities and effort that should be put into such questions, IMO.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 5:32:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer God-bangers want to irritate scientists by using scientists' own, honourable, rules against them - despite the fact that they, the god-bangers, hold to no such principles themselves whatsoever. Ya might want ta rethunk dat http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24 quote: According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.

DomKen -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 5:52:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist. I've never met or communicated with any such atheist. What most atheists have to say on the matter is that there is no evidence for any supernatural entity or event and that is is silly to believe in anything for which there is absolutely no evidence.

jlf1961 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 6:10:02 PM)
Actually according to the scientific minds on Futurama, it is not creationism, but a mix of the planet being seeded by an alien life form, and then evolution takes over. (sarcastic remark) But considering that all species of life on earth share some genetic markers, it pretty much rules out creationism. I have read that you have a better chance of drawing into a straight royal flush then for life to develop, but who knows. That said, I do not believe the theory that the universe developed from absolutely nothing, something had to be the start point, and in that sense, something had to start the process. I believe in god, I also don't believe god just snaps his fingers and something pops into existence. So no, the Earth is not just 6000 years old. As for the six days it took for creation, how do we know what constitutes a day for a life form that can create a universe, or the multiverse?

Switcheroo1983 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 6:20:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 That said, I do not believe the theory that the universe developed from absolutely nothing, something had to be the start point, and in that sense, something had to start the process. I believe in god, I also don't believe god just snaps his fingers and something pops into existence. So no, the Earth is not just 6000 years old. As for the six days it took for creation, how do we know what constitutes a day for a life form that can create a universe, or the multiverse? Wow same here. I am a firm believer in God, but not so much the creation. I do not buy the 6,000 years figure, not at all. I've noticed the 6,000 number is generally held by YEC (young earth creationist) Christians, and not just Christians as a whole (most Christians I know believe the earth is billions of years old). For anyone interested in "the other side" - http://islam.about.com/od/creation/a/creation.htm. While I am not a practicing Muslim (the bulk of my Father's family is), I hold many Islamic beliefs. You will be hard, hard pressed to find a Muslim or a Jew who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old.

WantsOfTheFlesh -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 6:27:36 PM)
yup also believe in da creator an' evolution. i see no contradiction cause da bible was a teaching aid an' in times long pre science should just be taken in metaphoral terms i reckon. da notion of god da creator is religious but a logical necessity too i reckon. how can change come wit out any agency?

GotSteel -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 9:04:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist. I've never met or communicated with any such atheist. What most atheists have to say on the matter is that there is no evidence for any supernatural entity or event and that is is silly to believe in anything for which there is absolutely no evidence. Ditto

tomguy -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 9:24:26 PM)
Seems like science really has it out for creationists. I wonder why "science" has such a chip on it's shoulder...

Nosathro -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 10:36:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tomguy Seems like science really has it out for creationists. I wonder why "science" has such a chip on it's shoulder... You could say the same thing for the Catholics, it was not until Pope John Paul II that the Church pardon Galileo.

jlf1961 -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 11:34:16 PM)
Actually, most of the younger priests seem to hold the same belief as I do on the mix of creation of the universe by god and the evolution of the universe and life as part of a natural order. I really cant wrap my head around a God that just snaps his fingers and something pops into existence. It just seems the lazy way of doing something, and after the many times of reading the bible, both catholic and king james versions, God just does not seem to be one for instant gratification. Just my opinion. As for the absence of proof there is a god, proof is in the perception of what a person sees. I have had some experiences that may have a scientific or medical explanation, but to me they seemed downright miraculous. So if you dont want to believe, that is fine, if you do believe, great. I am not about to try to force someone to believe in the same things I do.

MistressDarkArt -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/3/2013 11:39:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail and eaven bettur if you speeled it 'creatiOnists'. I first read it as 'cretin-ists'. Gawd forbid anyone should be a cretin! Or an 'ist' for that matter! [8D]

vincentML -> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. (2/4/2013 6:18:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Some atheists hold the position that the absence of proof or evidence for God is in fact proof that God does not exist. I've never met or communicated with any such atheist. What most atheists have to say on the matter is that there is no evidence for any supernatural entity or event and that is is silly to believe in anything for which there is absolutely no evidence. Seems like there is only a shade of difference between the two statements.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875