- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,028
- 52,626
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This bears repeating:Again, how do either of these cases cast doubt on the usefulness or validity of the scientific method in understanding the physical world around us?
amasci.com said:CORRECTED: THERE IS NO SINGLE "SCIENTIFIC METHOD." IT IS A MYTH
The rules of science fairs typically require that students follow THE
SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-testing. The students
must propose a hypothesis, test it by experiment, then reach
conclusions. This supposedly is "The Scientific Method" used by all
scientists. Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single
Scientific Method as such. "The Scientific Method" is a myth spread by
school books. It is an extremely widespread myth, but this doesn't
make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and
school books, and is not part of real science. Real scientists use a
large variety of methods (perhaps call them "The Methods of Science"
rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis-testing is one of
these, but it certainly is not the only one, and it would be a mistake
to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to
memorize it, and we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of
projects from science fairs.
For example, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a new kind
of measurment instrument, that certainly is "doing science", but where
is The Hypothesis? Where is the experiment? The Atomic Force
Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science, but wouldn't such a
project be rejected from many science fairs because it's not an
experiment? There are many parts of science which cannot easily be
forced into the "hypothesis/experiment/conclusion" mold. Nobody
performs Astronomy experiments, or Paleontology experiments. Forcing
kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science,
and it really isn't necessary in the first place.
Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists
notice anomalies. As Isaac Asimov said: "The most exciting phrase to
hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' " This suggests that
important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from
performing experiments, but instead from learning to see what nobody
else can see. Discovery comes from something resembling "informed
messing around," or unguided play. Yet many educators treat science as
deadly serious, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.
This bears repeating:
I am a Canadian.
The creationists, or the "intelligent design theorists" have been pushing hard to get their beliefs taught in a public school setting, rather than keeping it to Xian schools, or Catholic ones.
I pay my taxes.
If one of my offspring is to attend a science class, I want them taught science.
And while we are on the subject of creation and kids.
I think that, like alcohol, and other controlled substances, or things of an adult nature..
That our children should only be allowed to attend a church, when they are old enough to make that decision on their own.
Your parents arent allowed to give you a beer, but they can drag you to a place, where a minister and such rages on about some scary things, that you probably shouldnt tell a six year old.
Double standards are amazing, which is why the theistic community receives so much criticism these days.
I am a Canadian Creationist.
It is evolution and others that are brought into American schools to teach the kids the bible is wrong on God and genesis.
They are attacking the foundations of the christian religion in the eyes of many or most christians. Protestent especially but others too.
it is for the people to decide, since someone must, what is taught in science class on origins if its aggressivly confronting the long traditional beliefs of christianity.
If not the people then who.
It is already been put in the constitution by the Protestant People centuries ago that the state and church are not to interfere in each other. today the state interferes in christian truth by teaching evolution as the truth. While denying the bible a rebuttal on the very separation concept it breaks.
This will crash and burn soon especially as it has gone on to teach there is no God. Too far for many who didn't care about Genesis.
i doubt you would agree that having mandatory religion in schools is a good thing, if it wasn't Christianity.It is already been put in the constitution by the Protestant People centuries ago that the state and church are not to interfere in each other.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Two points:
1.A very important thing you forgot to mention is that the system must be isolated (i.e. free from external influences). The Universe as a whole tends towards a maximum value of entropy, because it's isolated (i.e. free from external influences). The Earth is not isolated; it continuously receives massive amounts of energy from the Sun, and therefore the Earth doesn't tend towards max entropy.
2.There is no loss of energy, as that would be a violation of the first law. Rather energy is transformed over time from the most useful form (lowest entropy) to the most useless (highest entropy), which is heat.
I forgot to mention? I thought I was allowed to state my own ideas. Yes I agree though that the universe tends towards maximum value of entropy.
That is what you believe. Right now I'm interested in discussing the claim that evolution violates the 2nd law, in other words what the science itself says, and not what you believe.
I'm sorry I was using the word "what I believe" when I'm not stating or quoting scientific fact. But if your interested we can debate what science says in more appropriate evolution/creation thread. I think I'm running off the subject matter of this thread.
Three points:
1.First a nitpick. A seed doesn't photosynthesize. It's crammed with storage energy from the mother plant, which indirectly stems from photosynthesis.
2.Another nitpick: I think you meant "lowest" in this sentence: "All the energy in the universe was created with hight entropic values to help sustain the living and working systems that have been created"
3.Nitpicks aside, you haven't really provided an argument as to why a seed can increase in complexity but evolution can't.
Now I need to provide a clearer argument about a seed sprouting(yes I mention errors-of-fact in my writing)? I thought we were debating the second law?
There isn't any scientific theories stating that something came from nothing. Creationist web sites like to claim so, but I advice some skepticism. There's alot of misinformation out there, and creationist sites thrives on it.
When did I use the term "scientific theories" and claim that all of my information comes from creation websites? In fact I derive most of my own personal ideas from the useful information that evolutionistic believing, wonderfully smart scientist have provided. Sorry just nitpicking and you've got my sarcastic side out.
In science very precise language is required, and it is indeed difficult to always use exactly the right terms at the right places. I'm sure I make a few mistakes here and there as well. It's good you recognize that there is room for improvement.
Well thank you. I aim for understanding and finding truth not winning debates. Don't forget what Einsteins once said - "Imagination is more important than knowledge".
The point I was making is that you seem to have a double standard. You want to rule out evolution because it states an increasing complexity over time, yet you accept that increases in complexity over time is possible in regards to other scenarios; as with seeds. If you feel I've misunderstood anything in the bolded sentence, perhaps you can point out exactly what.
A seed is a working machine with preprogrammed instructions. The lack of evidence from the millions of living organisms today increasing in complexity is just not convincing. I see all the species today exactly the way they have been for thousands of years(or millions to those need humoring), as a beetle, a frog, a salamander, a fish, a human. Is there variations in skin color, size, hair? Well these things fall under microevolution which I do believe in. I find the theory of evolution that every complex living organism today came from simple organisms insane.
Life will indeed seize to exist on Earth one day, when the Sun runs out of nuclei to fuse, indeed in accordance with the 2nd law.
Here I definitely agree that life on earth will cease to exist but not when the sun runs out of energy but when Jesus comes back to create a new heavens and earth. I cannot speculate the working of science in this new earth but who knows maybe many if not all of the current laws will exist. - now I'm getting weird.
I am a Canadian Creationist.
It is evolution and others that are brought into American schools to teach the kids the bible is wrong on God and genesis.
That's because your science is god.
How long is it going to take until you finally get it through your thick head that science says nothing concerning God? NOTHING. NADA. ZIP. ZERO. ZILCH. CERO. KAIMU. NULLA. NICHTS. RIEN.
It is evolution and others that are brought into American schools to teach the kids the bible is wrong on God and genesis.
They are attacking the foundations of the christian religion in the eyes of many or most christians. Protestent especially but others too.
They are attacking the foundations of the christian religion in the eyes of many or most christians. Protestent especially but others too.
If not the people then who.
today the state interferes in christian truth by teaching evolution as the truth.
This will crash and burn soon especially as it has gone on to teach there is no God.
That's because your science is god.
That's because your science is god.
So is Jesus.No it's not god but it is the truth.
That means that one of you is wrong, and guess which one I'm going with.John 14:6 said:Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
That means that one of you is wrong, and guess which one I'm going with.
So is Jesus.That means that one of you is wrong, and guess which one I'm going with.
Frankly, I don't care how offensive it is. If you think I'm going to just remain silent so the religious can use science to say the Flood didn't happen, and evolution did happen, etc.; then that's too bad. I get just as offended.No. Wrong. Utterly. Don't you understand how offensive that is for people who are religious?
But worshipping God requires you do it the right way ---Seriously, understanding God's creation doesn't mean you stop worshiping God.
--- and science certainly has a problem with truth*, doesn't it?John 4:24 said:God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Frankly, I don't care how offensive it is. If you think I'm going to just remain silent so the religious can use science to say the Flood didn't happen, and evolution did happen, etc.; then that's too bad. I get just as offended.
--- and science certainly has a problem with truth*, doesn't it?
* Mainly with the claim that truth is relative.
Buddha was a deadbeat dad traipsing around the countryside telling others how to find enlightenment. Mohammed was a one-man author of fiction, but a military genius who united 12? rag-tag tribes into a well-oiled fighting machine. Neither one were deities.In that case so his Buda, Mohammed, and all the myriad of other deities from around the world.
Frankly, I don't care how offensive it is. If you think I'm going to just remain silent so the religious can use science to say the Flood didn't happen, and evolution did happen, etc.; then that's too bad. I get just as offended.
But worshipping God requires you do it the right way ------ and science certainly has a problem with truth*, doesn't it?
* Mainly with the claim that truth is relative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?