The problem with Creation vs. Evolution threads (or why certain atheists aren't helping)

[VirOptimus]

My religious beliefs protect me from most of society's problems. That I don't hold science in the highest regard is science's problem, not mine.

"Science" is not an entity, its a method helping us understand and describe physical reality.

 

[Herman Hedning]

My religious beliefs protect me from most of society's problems. That I don't hold science in the highest regard is science's problem, not mine.

It most definitely isn't.

 

[Loudmouth]

My religious beliefs protect me from most of society's problems. That I don't hold science in the highest regard is science's problem, not mine.

When you reject facts, it isn't the facts' fault.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Science" is not an entity, its a method helping us understand and describe physical reality.

Science observes that a person is drowning, and studies the event.

My clear meaning was that science, in the hands of scientists, isn't the great problem solver that it is trumpeted to be.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I assume you visit a physician occasionally for medical care correct?

Next time you go, ask them about the TOE and how it has impacted medical care.

I would rather ask him or her why they don't support legislation to force people to be more responsible with their health, and with the health of others. Oh wait, they can't change human nature, neither can science.

 

[bhsmte]

I would rather ask him or her why they don't support legislation to force people to be more responsible with their health, and with the health of others. Oh wait, they can't change human nature, neither can science.

No they cant change human nature, but they can certainly rely on and understand how the TOE has helped medicine.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No they cant change human nature, but they can certainly rely on and understand how the TOE has helped medicine.

And I am grateful for modern medicine, it has saved my bacon several times.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science observes that a person is drowning, and studies the event.

My clear meaning was that science, in the hands of scientists, isn't the great problem solver that it is trumpeted to be.

Proof?

Why don't you show us a different method that has been more successful than the scientific method.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Proof?

Why don't you show us a different method that has been more successful than the scientific method.

Clearly making things up and believing them in the face of all evidence is the superior way to learn things.

I'm surprised you had to ask.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Proof?

Why don't you show us a different method that has been more successful than the scientific method.

No point, as you would posit that all solutions are 'scientific' even if one doesn't realize it. You are also implying that all problems have a scientific solution. Science has attributed human nature to evolution (and thus within the realm of science) and yet has no solution for it's problems.

 

[Loudmouth]

No point, as you would posit that all solutions are 'scientific' even if one doesn't realize it. You are also implying that all problems have a scientific solution. Science has attributed human nature to evolution (and thus within the realm of science) and yet has no solution for it's problems.

I am implying that you can't come up with a better method than the scientific method, and you have confirmed that conclusion for me.

 

[quatona]

I only have two problems with science,

1. The ToE.

Personally, I have a problem with gravity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Personally, I have a problem with gravity.

Has it got you down?

 

[Hoghead1]

I only have two problems with science,

1. The ToE.
2. The implicit promise of problem solving beyond it's capacity.

Otherwise I do appreciate science.

Yes, but those are your, underscore "your," problems. They are not at all problems in the real world of science.

 

[Hoghead1]

My religious beliefs protect me from most of society's problems. That I don't hold science in the highest regard is science's problem, not mine.

No, it is just your problem. The world of science doesn't give a hoot what your degrees are in or what you think.

 

[florida2]

I didn't get that from the video.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...7F211123CCAAAC39106D7F211123CCAAAC3&FORM=VIRE

I didn't watch that particular video, I'm speaking from my own knowledge.

For example without quantum theory there would be no transistors or lasers - the basis of computer chips and modern communications. Every piece of modern technology has its roots in quantum physics.

The beauty of science is its ability to persue questions simply because people want to know the answer, rather than immediately looking for a practical, commercial benefit.

I'm sure if you asked Schrodimger and others in the 1920s what use their seemingly bizarre theory would have, they would not have had a clue. They couldn't have realised it would revolutionise the world

 

[VirOptimus]

Science observes that a person is drowning, and studies the event.

My clear meaning was that science, in the hands of scientists, isn't the great problem solver that it is trumpeted to be.

Science is a tool, and as such can be misused. However, when exploring physical reality its the best method we have.

Your arguments seem to stem from that you really dont understand what science is and what it isnt.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am implying that you can't come up with a better method than the scientific method, and you have confirmed that conclusion for me.

That really depends on the nature of the problem, doesn't it? Our most pressing problems seem to be beyond the ability of science to solve. While the news occasionally reports some new scientific advance it constantly reports the failures of human nature. Perhaps science should pay more attention to those problems.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, but those are your, underscore "your," problems. They are not at all problems in the real world of science.

That's pretty arrogant of science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Science is a tool, and as such can be misused.

I agree.