Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Science proves creatinists wrong.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 9:17:40 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 2/3/2013 9:18:13 AM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 10:04:08 AM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 11:10:15 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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 (?)

< Message edited by vincentML -- 2/3/2013 11:11:28 AM >

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 11:19:59 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 11:24:12 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 11:55:20 AM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 2/3/2013 11:56:46 AM >

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 12:18:04 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.




(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 4:51:42 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by WantsOfTheFlesh -- 2/3/2013 4:52:22 PM >

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 5:22:36 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 5:32:02 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 5:52:41 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 6:10:02 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		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?

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to WantsOfTheFlesh)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 6:20:11 PM   
Switcheroo1983


Posts: 238
Joined: 1/29/2013
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 6:27:36 PM   
WantsOfTheFlesh


Posts: 1226
Joined: 3/3/2009
Status: offline 		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?

_____________________________

"I had lot's of luck but its all been bad"

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 9:04:11 PM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
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

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 9:24:26 PM   
tomguy


Posts: 26
Joined: 7/10/2012
Status: offline 		Seems like science really has it out for creationists. I wonder why "science" has such a chip on it's shoulder...

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 10:36:06 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to tomguy)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 11:34:16 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Nosathro)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/3/2013 11:39:45 PM   
MistressDarkArt


Posts: 5178
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. - 2/4/2013 6:18:59 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Science proves creatinists wrong. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109