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.
Shane Roach said:So, what's the problem then with the scientific community acknowledging that the speed of acceleration near the earth's surface or that metal will heat and glow if you run electrical current through a thin filament of it is more reliable knowledge than the ultimate origins of life the universe, and everything I always am left wondering...?
random_guy said:I think the problem is that atheists and some Creationists, while enemies, are actually helping each other's causes. Militant atheists that say science disproves God and the Bible and Creationists that say science proves God and the Bible allows science, God, and the Bible to conflict. This makes is so that science can be used to attack God and the Bible. However, science does not say whether the supernatural does or does not exist. It makes no claims about the supernatural what so ever.
Science is nothing more than a tool to study our natural world. I think if more atheists and Creationists realize this, there would be more people accepting of science (and hopefully religion). Science doesn't exclude God from setting everything in motion, nor does it exclude Him from giving us souls. It can not exclude or include Him because that's not the role of science.
Melethiel said:That has not been my observation. However, I have not seen the distinction that you are trying to make either. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your distinction, but you refused to clarify...
[/size][/color][/font]
random_guy said:Some knowledge is harder to study than others. Nothing wrong with that. There are easy to study parts of evolution (measuring gene frequency change rate in current populations) and harder parts of evolution (discovering the origin of wheat plants) just like there is easy parts to study of gravity (measuring acceleration of a ball) to hard parts of study of gravity (including relativity so that our GPS satellites work correctly).
random_guy said:I feel the same way. I think the wheat example was an excellent example of the scientific method applied to evolution. I guess his problem is with historical sciences, you have to have assumptions (based off of evidence). Also, I just want to say I commend you for having an interest in science at such a young age. I wish there were more people like you in America. We wouldn't be having this debate, then.
Shane Roach said:Yes, well you've fallen back on things that are all experimentally verifiable again, have you not?
Sad... Oh well. I am satisfied that the actual problem is indeed one of a refusal to acknowledge basic points of epistemology, as no one yet has been able or willing to deal with the question I asked head on.
Calculus isn't science, it's Friday morning boredom.Shane Roach said:Oh well, gee. I guess all my calculus and two semesters of lab physics leaves me out of the cool kids club then. *snaps fingers*
I suggest you check in Darwin's origin of the species. You will find that Darwin himself put a condition on his theory. Darwin and other scientist only knew that the cell contained a nucleus, which was a foggy view at best. darwin basically says that if the cell is complex in structure, then my theory cannot be right. Science has discovered that the cell is very complex and that evolution is not possible under those conditions. The only science which will be discredited is from bad science which tries to prove their theories right instead of letting science determine what theories are right.Liberalscience said:Charles Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution in 1859. In his theory Darwin noted that there were biological variations among individuals of a species. At the time Darwin didnt know what caused these variations, since that time we have learned that that such variations were caused by mutations, or physical changes in a gene or chromosome. Darwin noted that within a situation which presented limited resources and a continued growth of a species populous, there would emerge competition for resources, and in this competition, members of the species with useful mutations would be more likely to survive and reproduce than those without.
This may seem like common sense to us now, its fairly obvious that, lets say, a cheetah which is faster then all the other cheetahs will be more likely to catch its pray, and by catching this pray, it will further its life span and be more likely to reproduce and pass on its genes.
The mutations that cause this variation can be split up into 3 groups; useful, neutral and harmful. Most mutations are neutral, with useful and harmful mutations often being dictated by there surroundings.
This is simple stuff.
Darwins theory of evolution caused a major stir when it introduced in England in 1859. Opponents of the theory included many religious groups. At the time, a large number of people throughout the English-speaking world believed that the word of noted church theologian Bishop Ussher, who had determined through rigorous study of the bible that the exact date of the creation of the Earth was October 22, 4004 B.C. By Usshers calculations our world was approximately 6,000 years old. Needless to say Darwins theory was in direct conflict with the bishops date, as his evolution could only take place on grand scales of millions of years. The inevitable happened and within a short period a war of the words began between those who believed Darwin, and those that didnt.
Lets take America as a model, mostly because the evolution/creationism debate has received the most press there. Up to the 1960s the creationism belief was the most predominant one, with practically no biology textbooks even mentioning evolution. The best example of this predominant belief structure being the famous Scopes trial, where a teacher was prosecuted for teaching evolution in the classroom. However, the space race changed all this, in the early 1960s the American government believed that the Soviets were beating America in the space race because of better schooling in science and technology. A long, hard look was taken at textbooks, and biology instruction was changed to firmly embrace evolution.
As the government continued to bar religion in classrooms Evangelical Christians switched tactics. For years they had objected to teaching evolution because they considered it a scientific religion, a part of secular humanism that stood directly opposed to organised faith. Instead of attacking science, the fundamentalists became part of it. A number of theologians and scientists started promoting a concept they called creation science, in which they challenged the basic principles of evolution as being unproven and improvable. The creation scientists offered their own version of how life began on earth using the old testament as their only source book. In the debates that followed, Fundamentalists argued that the evidence that they presented proved that evolution was false. They asked that teachers only be able to present Darwins theory of evolution only if it was clearly labelled a theory, and nothing more. More importantly they demanded that if evolution was to be taught in schools, their viewpoint, creationism should be taught as well.
Despite the fact that creationism was largely ridiculed and rejected throughout most of the western world, American began to adopt it again, and it was embraced by a large section of the American Population.
The American battle between creationism and evolution came to a boil in the late 1990s when the state school board of Kansas rewrote the science education policy. Students would no longer be tested on their knowledge of evolution, and as subjects that werent tested werent taught, Evolution dropped out of sight in Kansas. As you can imagine this led to a storm of protest across the country, people throughout the state complained that Kansas had become the laughing stock of the country. As Kansas received flak from collage professors to late-night comedians, the Evangelical Christians, who had pushed for the change, accused everyone of attacking their beliefs. Creationists claimed that liberal politicians and big media players were out to quash viewpoints different from their own. Viewpoints, that creationists claimed were obviously true to anyone with common sense.
Thankfully the voting public made their view known, Kansas had its evolution bad rescinded. However none of the old arguments were settled and neither side backed down.
Everything stands or falls with Darwins theory. If god created everything at one time and god created everything in his own image man is already perfect as god intended. Mutations in humans would demonstrate that man wasnt perfect when he was created. Moreover, the notion of humanity evolving upward into an even greater species suggests that one species can evolve into another, a claim that creationists say is absolutely impossible.
The main thrust of creationism is an attack on the theory of evolution. If the theory is not true, the creationists declare, then any conclusions drawn from it are equally tainted. Proving evolution not true would be a cataclysmic event in the history of modern science and technology. Much of our understanding of the physical and biological world relies on concepts derived from the theory of evolution. Creationists argue that because it would cause so much disruption, scientists are willing to go to any lengths to falsify data to prove evolution.
Unfortunately for the creationists, though they have found evidence of fake fossils and other deceitful activities by a small number of people aiming to make fast cash, theyve yet to find a single hard fact that proves Darwin wrong. Despite all of their trying, the protestors are forced to use hyperbole, oftentimes inaccurate and misleading information, and arguments based on obvious material to make their case. Creationist rely too much on facts they claim are obvious but cant be proved.
Theory is a word that generates much debate when brought up with evolution. Other theories, like the theory of general relativity, the laws governing electricity and the 3 laws of thermodynamics have been proven so many times that no one doubts them. Evolution is a theory that has been proven time and time again. A vast majority of the worlds scientists believe it is true, as do most religious leaders and theologians. In 1996, the pope released a formal statement to the Pontifical Academy of Science stating that Fresh knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more then just a hypothesis.
Any other theory with such overwhelming support would be considered true in an instant. Only the theory of evolution, which according to fundamentalists contradicts the unalterable truth of the Bible, has faced so many challenged for 140 years.
Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of out fastest-growing controversial minorities, proclaim numerous internet sites. Not mentioned anywhere on these sites is the Gallup pole that shows that 95% of scientists in the U.S. believe that evolution is fact. Surveys taken from scientific groups around the world place the number of scientists believing in evolution at 99%.
Creation scientists not only believe that god created the world in 4004 B.C, but, by implication, that he created the entire universe at the same instant, locating distant galaxies millions of light years away from earth so that they would correspond with modern relative theory and astronomy. Millions of years of fossil remains are described as residue from one big flood taking place only several thousands of years ago, while carbon dating is dismissed as totally false and inaccurate. In other words, the accept only the data that fit their conclusions and dismiss any information that contradicts their belief.
In the 140 years since the theory of evolution was proposed, no real challenge to its validity has been proven. The theory of evolution fits with every other scientific discovery weve made about the universe. Consider this evidence.
Darwin predicted that the ancestors of trilobites would be found in pre-Silurian age rocks. His predictions turned out to be true, as they were later found.
In 1859, Darwin said the total lack of Precambrian age fossils was unexplainable and that the lack could be a strong argument against his theory. However, such fossils were discovered in 1953. They had been around all along, just too small to be seen by microscope.
Evolutions predicted that animals on far islands will be related to animals on the closest mainland; that the older and more the distant the island, the more distant the relationship. This has been shown numerous times to be true.
And finally I shall finish on the biggest nail in the coffin. When detailed results of the Human Genome Project were announced at the 2001 meeting of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, data tied human organisms to earlier forms of life, going back as far as primitive bacteria.
These fundamental lies of creationism will only serve to destroy the scientific community. Feel free to argue, please fight back at PM me for contact info.
Well, you seem not to. You somehow want science generated through the application of the Scientific Method to not be like science generated through the application of the Scientific Method.Shane Roach said:Seriously... who doesn't view science as science?
Well, it looks like you are talking about Abiogenesis instead of Evolution. That could be one reason why your claim simply doesn't make sense to anybody else. But that would also indicate that you don't even know what evolution is, before trying to claim it is not valid science. A very dubious position.Shane Roach said:The problem I have with this is that somewhere between assuming this is the way it happened, and assuming that aliens did it, there are a load of possibilities, many of which might be more plausible but which would not be known yet because of a lack of information.
This particular example doesn't lend itself well to my point, but the point remains...
steen said:Well, it looks like you are talking about Abiogenesis instead of Evolution. That could be one reason why your claim simply doesn't make sense to anybody else. But that would also indicate that you don't even know what evolution is, before trying to claim it is not valid science. A very dubious position.
This passage (in context) is about the Cross, not scientific endeavour. I'm always astounded as I come across more and more misuse of scripture by Creationists.Shane Roach said:More to the point, science does not exclude God from having made the world 8000 years ago and leaving it looking the way it does to mess with your head and fulfill the scripture:
1 Cor 1:27-29
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
KJV
Ah, do they now, are are they just so incredibly ignorant about the subject that they THINK they are seeing that?Shane Roach said:Yes, I know that they do. I also know that the reason they do is because they watch many supporters of evolution pile assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption, and then pass off the end result as if it were exactly as reliable as the technology behind the light bulb, and that simply happens to not be true.
Ok, and they are free to do so outside of science class, of course. Nothing stops them from doing so themselves or sending the kids to Sunday school or a private school where this is taught.People want to educate their kids about God and other views of life that frankly have nothing to do with science,
Their silly and erroneous view is not our problem.and they see a godless view of life being taught in schools,
Ah, so we should have the honorable mentioning of "but perhaps goddidit when teaching gravity. And acceleration. And potential and kinetic energy. That sound like a grand plan, doesn't it?and they want nothing more than an honorable mention of an alternative view, which incidentally would be a teachable moment regarding what science can and can not deal with,
Well, it wouldn't be science. To discuss it is science class as if it somehow is valid in the scientific context would be to lie to the kids. Are you now saying that we also should lie to kids? Are you really that uneducated about science?and instead we are faced with a tiny minority that have somehow gotten it legislated from the bench that such a conversation is somehow unconstitutional.
That is what the Scientific Method takes care off. Do you at all have a clue about that subject?Well.... if you understood the concept behind the relative reliability of ideas,
And what worldview would that be? I hope you are not going to outright lie and claim that science does that, are you?and you understood that people are spiritual creatures, and thus they do not see a worldview that claims that there is no spirit nor any possibility of spiritual intervention in history as RELIABLE,
Huh? In science class, science is taught. I have no "enemy" in creationism. They want to have their beliefs, that's fine. As long as they don't mess science up.then you would begin to more fully understand your enemy, so to speak, and at least be able to talk TO them instead of at them.
Ah, so without emotional histrionics, we have no creationism?You are slightly too rational to truly make my point,
but I will simply refer back to the fellow who calls himself the "lie detector" for my example of a person who creates more problems than he solves with his brand of "education".
Shane Roach said:I haven't claimed evolution is not science, and I am not talking about abiogenesis, and you appear not to like to read.
And believe me, it is amazing how quickly people suddenly understand me when they are not dedicated to trying to uphold the idea that evolution is as relaible a set of ideas as the concepts behind the light bulb. It is AMAZING to watch how easily people understand things when they are not trying to defend the indefensible.
No, you are wrong. How can you be so ignorant of evolution and yet claim that it is wrong? The staggering level of dishonesty needed for such behavior as you are showing is disturbing. The deliberate bearing false witness that you are displaying is disgusting.the funny thing is, is I used the definition from the dictionary. So maby you should take it up with wikpedia
Shane Roach said:Yes, I know that they do. I also know that the reason they do is because they watch many supporters of evolution pile assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption, and then pass off the end result as if it were exactly as reliable as the technology behind the light bulb, and that simply happens to not be true.
People want to educate their kids about God
and other views of life that frankly have nothing to do with science,
and they see a godless view of life being taught in schools,
and they want nothing more than an honorable mention of an alternative view, which incidentally would be a teachable moment regarding what science can and can not deal with,
and instead we are faced with a tiny minority that have somehow gotten it legislated from the bench that such a conversation is somehow unconstitutional.
Well.... if you understood the concept behind the relative reliability of ideas, and you understood that people are spiritual creatures, and thus they do not see a worldview that claims that there is no spirit nor any possibility of spiritual intervention in history as RELIABLE,
then you would begin to more fully understand your enemy, so to speak, and at least be able to talk TO them instead of at them.
but I will simply refer back to the fellow who calls himself the "lie detector" for my example of a person who creates more problems than he solves with his brand of "education".
theoddamerican said:Evolution is truly a silly story and supported only on lies.
nicolezoeydafney said:spell check please!!!!
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?