Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on August 10, 2005, 04:25:51 pm
-
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-08-10T175646Z_01_N10498200_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-LIFE-EVOLUTION-DC.XML
The dumbification of america continues
-
:sigh:
There's really nothing else to say except let's get 100,000 people in the streets and protest.
-
there is a nice error in there where they misused "Secular" where they meant to say "sectarian"
-
Dumbification? I do hope that was intentional.
-
it was
-
How dose that artical show were dumb? Its about Xians and Evolutionists..
-
Someone hook up a turbine to Clarance Darrow's body. I think we've just found a renewable energy source. :rolleyes:
-
That reminds me of a Dilbert strip.
-
Thank god I moved out of that state...
-
Originally posted by Charismatic
How dose that artical show were dumb? Its about Xians and Evolutionists..
I really can't tell if you're being ironic or not.
-
So wait, evolutionists are feeling threatened by something else being taught alongside their preferred theory in schools?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
So wait, evolutionists are feeling threatened by something else being taught alongside their preferred theory in schools?
No, we just feel that it's a step backwards to put less emphasis on an extremely well proven theory with tons of evidence supporting it and then put more emphasis on beliefs based on taking the Bible too literally. I'm a christian, btw but that doesn't mean that I don't think creationism is retarded.
-
Creationism is just a story used to explain things we couldnt back then, and yes I'm a christian too btw
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
So wait, evolutionists are feeling threatened by something else being taught alongside their preferred theory in schools?
Let me put it this way. Suppose someone told you that all priests must now preach Islam and Buddism from the pulpit because Christianity is a theory wouldn't you be pissed off or would you be making the same comment about how christians are threatened by another faith being taught alongside theirs?
Intelligent Design has no place in a science class. It's the very antithesis of science in that it starts with a conclusion and then attempts to fit the evidence around it rather than the other way around.
-
Teaching intelligent design in science class is like teaching Latvian in English class. Wrong subject.
-
Eh, whatever. They're grasping at straws. Somehow, I don't see any 17 year olds with access to Google going "hmm, y'know, maybe the world is 6000 years old.".
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
So wait, evolutionists are feeling threatened by something else being taught alongside their preferred theory in schools?
I'd say more at an - inherently - unproven and unproveable belief being taught as a valid alternative to ccorrectly formed scientific theory within the environment of a scientific lesson or class.
Creationism is a belief. It should be taught in theology or religious education, not science.
This sort of move is worthy of the 19th century, not the 21st. It's backwards and wilfully ignorant.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Eh, whatever. They're grasping at straws. Somehow, I don't see any 17 year olds with access to Google going "hmm, y'know, maybe the world is 6000 years old.".
You'd be surprised. I've seen many 17 year olds with beliefs similarly absurd around here. I'm particularly amused by those who tell me about the second law of thermodynamics...
-
I figured this would be a good time to remind everyone of this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo.html)
-
Christian board members who say evolution is largely unproven and can undermine religious teachings about the origins of life on earth.[/qoute]
ya, because they've never found fossils of prehistoric animals, of which include apes and early man:rolleyes:
I wonder if they believe in dinosaurs...
They act as if they're beliefs have facts behind them and that their religion is a science. Even if evolution is 'largely unproven' (which it isn't), the existence of God or higher being in completely unproven.
-
Dumb people are everywhere these days...
How blind are tehy that they can't see evolution theory & bible go along just swell. They complement eachtoer, as long as you don't take the Bible too literary.. and that's exactly what they are doing!
Alltough I will say that even though existance of God has never really been proven (he wouldn't be much of a God if we can analyze Him, now would he?), the universe makes much less ssense without one.
Scince fails to explain some things (like the Big Bang)
-
Reminds me of the babelfish. ;)
-
Intelligent Design?
Not very intelligent when you get down to it is it? Stuff exploding, nothing to breath, everything trying to go in every direction at once and all being held in place by a bunch of rubber-band physics laws? ;)
Seriously though, does this 'intelligent design' allow the consideration that whilst life had been created by an intelligent force, that mankind was part of a 'job lot' of the entire universe and that we are not the focus of it's existence?
Personally, it sounds more like Philosophical/Psuedo-Religious conversation to me and certainly shouldn't be in a science class, where nothing exists that you cannot test for.
-
TrashMan the universe makes perfect sense without a god or anything else supernatural - infact it makes a LOT more sense logically.
Some people just cannot fathom that "irrelevant" and "just don't know" are valid answers
-
Which is how I always screw with my father's mind when we argue about creation:
Him: "So what caused/came before the big bang?"
Me: "Maybe nothing. Maybe it's still happening, will happen, etc."
Him: "How can it have been nothing, there has to be a beginning, a middle and an end!"
Me: "Prove it."
-
Originally posted by vyper
Him: "How can it have been nothing, there has to be a beginning, a middle and an end!"
You: "Where is God's beginning, middle and end?" :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Let me put it this way. Suppose someone told you that all priests must now preach Islam and Buddism from the pulpit because Christianity is a theory wouldn't you be pissed off or would you be making the same comment about how christians are threatened by another faith being taught alongside theirs?
That's not the same situation. The function of public school is not to persuade, it's to inform. Thus a religion class should give equal time to the major and minor religions, since it's beneficial to be informed about them.
However people go to church to be persuaded and to be guided along a certain path. In that case the people have a right to choose which church to attend and to not have different religions preached side-by-side.Intelligent Design has no place in a science class. It's the very antithesis of science in that it starts with a conclusion and then attempts to fit the evidence around it rather than the other way around.
No, the scientific method is precisely that: make a hypothesis, then find evidence to support it. Nothing is ever conclusively proven. Even long-held theories like gravity and motion can sometimes be modified with new ideas like relativity.
There's nothing wrong with teaching two competing theories side-by-side, even if one of them happens to be wrong. Students are still taught about the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even if hardly anyone nowadays believes it to be true.
Considering that science is a process of discovery, not dogmatic dictation of facts, you could say that preventing the teaching of intelligent design is actually blind bias in favor of Darwinian evolution.
-
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory in the first place. There's no test to determine if an omnipotent, supernatural being designed organisms.
From Wikipedia on theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory):
A theory has to be something which is in some way testable; for example, one can theorize that an apple will fall when dropped, and then drop an apple, to see what happens. Many scientists argue that religious beliefs are not testable, and thus not theories, because they are matters of faith.
-
Goober5000 the point is they're putting it in SCIENCE class opposing REAL SCIENCE
keep it in the ****ing world religions class where it belongs
-
if someone comes up with a scientific theory that competes with Evolution it must be presented untill one of them fails. creationism is not a competeing theory, partly because it is no competition, but more importantly because it's not a theory, hell it isn't even a hypothosis, it's just within the borders of wild unfounded speculation
-
I wonder if alien civilizations all over the universe are debating this.
-
and I realy want people to consiter the ramifications of the whole redefineing of science that they did here, science now covers ghosts and spirits acording to this, that, even though science hasn't proven or even found any evedence at all for there exsistance, this sort of stuff can be used to explain phenomina, this is, this is anti-science.
-
Evolution: Theory Taught as Fact :nervous:
-
but it is the truth, as close to it as you can get, far as I can tell anyway
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Evolution: Theory Taught as Fact :nervous:
Looks like somebody here doesn't understand what "theory" actually means, in a scientific sense that is.
Relativity is "just a theory" too and telecommunication satellites seem to work quite well ;)
Keep in mind that evolution is testable and has been. Of course creationists like to create arbitrary terms such as "micro and macro evolution" but the fact of the matter is that gene frequency changes over time is all that it takes for evolution to occur.
We know this happens, and at a rate that allows for the divergence of species at the rate seen in the fossil record.
Even if you believe the world was made 2,000 years ago it doesn't change the fact that evolution exists as a force and is active in the modern world.
Kazan: I am assuming that since this passed they are supporting the teaching of FSM creationism as well?
-
Evolution is a fact, and failing to take it into acoult results in people dieing.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
So wait, evolutionists are feeling threatened by something else being taught alongside their preferred theory in schools?
No, it has nothing to do with that. The problem is that the "creationsists" want a RELIGIOUS theory to be taught in a SCIENCE class. The "evolutionists" have no problems with it being taught were it belongs, in a RELIGIONS class.
Creationism isn't a science.
And if you're going to say that a religious theory should be taught in a science class, then they might as well teach witchcraft in a medical class.
-
I believe that they should teach and debate it in class of what side you think is a better theory and, therefore learning all there is to learn. Needs to be prover one way or another anyhow, might be a good way to help speed that along. Course that's my opinion.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Evolution: Theory Taught as Fact :nervous:
Gravity : Theory taught as Fact.
Thermodynamics : Theory taught as Fact.
Every single branch of science : Theory Taught as Fact.
Science accepts no such thing as an absolute fact. All that exists in science is a theory we have yet to disprove. Science class simply drops all the "as far as can be proved" because it would make classes take twice as long if you added every single one.
Originally posted by Goober5000
That's not the same situation. The function of public school is not to persuade, it's to inform. Thus a religion class should give equal time to the major and minor religions, since it's beneficial to be informed about them.
And if we inform people about something unscientific in science class how are we informing them one iota? Science classes should only ever contain science. To teach anything else is idiotic.
Originally posted by Goober5000
However people go to church to be persuaded and to be guided along a certain path. In that case the people have a right to choose which church to attend and to not have different religions preached side-by-side.
And children are sent to science class to learn science because society as a whole has determined that science is something that should be on the ciriculum. That means you can only teach science there. Not use it as a path to teach psuedo-science.
If you feel that children should be taught about religion then it should be taught in RE not in science as it has absolutely no place there.
Originally posted by Goober5000
No, the scientific method is precisely that: make a hypothesis, then find evidence to support it. Nothing is ever conclusively proven. Even long-held theories like gravity and motion can sometimes be modified with new ideas like relativity.
Science starts with a hypothesis that may or may not be proven correct. ID starts with a conclusion which will be proven correct by the time the process is complete.
Originally posted by Goober5000
There's nothing wrong with teaching two competing theories side-by-side, even if one of them happens to be wrong. Students are still taught about the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even if hardly anyone nowadays believes it to be true.
However I don't believe that there is any science teacher who teaches the ptolomaic model as anything apart from an example of what people thought before a better explaination came along. I've got no problem with the teaching of ID in science class as an alternative now proven incorrect theory. I'm all for that. If you also want to teach ID as an example of how not to do science I'm all for it.
As for there being nothing wrong with it. American school kids leave school woefully ignorant about science. Why do you think forcing them to spend time learning about something that has nothing to do with science is going to help anything? The time spent on the ID nonsense is time that could have been spent on actual science.
Originally posted by Goober5000
[BConsidering that science is a process of discovery, not dogmatic dictation of facts, you could say that preventing the teaching of intelligent design is actually blind bias in favor of Darwinian evolution. [/B]
So why teach people about a retrograde step that ignores the scientific method as anything other than an example of how to get things wrong?
If you want to teach how the scientific method works explain why Lamarkerism and saltautionism were discarded as alternate therories and you've got your process of discovery right there.
BTW why do I never hear the christian right complaining about the dogmatic dictation of the theory of gravity? A theory which actually has less supporting evidence than evolution cause we still can't find the graviton.
-
BTW why do I never hear the christian right complaining about the dogmatic dictation of the theory of gravity? A theory which actually has less supporting evidence than evolution cause we still can't find the graviton.
Actually i think they have found that Graviton, but I could me mistaken....
-
I'm sure the discovery of the graviton would have made front page news even if most people ddn't know why it was so important :D
They did recently measure the speed of gravity (Which must therefore be the speed of a graviton) recently though. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.
-
could be...i'll have to do some research on it....
(Edit)....Yeah your right, as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
-
"We think this is a great development ... for the academic freedom of students," said John West, senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design theory
C'mon, how could you oppose something that'll grant more freedom? Are all of you opposed to freedom? How could someone be opposed to something as joyous and totally American as freedom? :p
In my opinion, we should just leave them to it! If they want to teach Creationalisn in Science Class, let 'em! It'll be a great social experiment for the rest of the world to see, the only downside is that it'll probably end up like the great social experiment Cambodia under Pol Pot became :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
That's not the same situation. The function of public school is not to persuade, it's to inform. Thus a religion class should give equal time to the major and minor religions, since it's beneficial to be informed about them.
However people go to church to be persuaded and to be guided along a certain path. In that case the people have a right to choose which church to attend and to not have different religions preached side-by-side.No, the scientific method is precisely that: make a hypothesis, then find evidence to support it. Nothing is ever conclusively proven. Even long-held theories like gravity and motion can sometimes be modified with new ideas like relativity.
There's nothing wrong with teaching two competing theories side-by-side, even if one of them happens to be wrong. Students are still taught about the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even if hardly anyone nowadays believes it to be true.
Considering that science is a process of discovery, not dogmatic dictation of facts, you could say that preventing the teaching of intelligent design is actually blind bias in favor of Darwinian evolution.
When Intelligent Design is a proper scientific theory formed as the consequence of a weight of evidence, it can be taught as such. When it is simply a belief formed through religion, as it is, it belongs in the realms of theology, not science.
You seem to be implying that evolution has to be challenged by an alternative theory for 'fairness'; but intelligent design does not have the scientific criteria (both in it's original formatory method, and also in supporting evidence) to be used as an opposing 'theory'.
The truth is, I could probably create a 'theory' that the world was in fact created by me and begun when I was born, and I could probably justify it in the same was the intelligent design argument. Mainly by trying to attack the accepted, researched (and continuing to be) and evidenced scientific explanation.
It's not bias to teach a single theory when that theory is the only one that viably exists with the current evidence. All teaching creationism does is seek to undermine an opponent, not for scientific reasons but theological reasons.
Another thing; everything in the bible is designed to make readers follow that particular religion. Thus, is teaching a theory directly derived from that book not doing the same, and thus breaking seperation of church and state? Unless you want to teach every creation myth... but, wait - that's what RE is for!
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Even long-held theories like gravity and motion can sometimes be modified with new ideas like relativity.
Modified, yes, but even in light of relativity, newtons laws still work. The same can be said of evolution. Small changes may come along, but the theory is solid, and it's not going away.
Originally posted by Goober5000
There's nothing wrong with teaching two competing theories side-by-side, even if one of them happens to be wrong. Students are still taught about the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, even if hardly anyone nowadays believes it to be true.
That's true, but students are taught it as a part of the history of science, and it is openly stated to be an incorrect theory. If creationism is applied the same way (ie. as an inaccurate belief that people believed a few hundred years ago before we understood evolution, and as a part of the history of science), then I have no problem with it being incorporated into science classes.
Originally posted by Goober5000
Considering that science is a process of discovery, not dogmatic dictation of facts, you could say that preventing the teaching of intelligent design is actually blind bias in favor of Darwinian evolution.
Bias, yes. Blind, no. A blind bias would imply that one or the other was chosen and is now promoted with no eye to the relative merits of either. That is not the case. Evolution has scientific backing, therefore it belongs in science classes. ID does not. There's no scientific controversy about evolution, and there aren't any criticisms of the currently accepted theory that need to be introduced at a high school level (since the issues are esoteric and complex, and related to highly specific details, and requiring a pretty hefty biological knowledge base that students just don't get before Uni, generally not until at least post-grad - I've had a specific interest in evolution for years, and I'm halfway through a biology degree and I still don;t even understand the problems with the theory).
Originally posted by Descenter
I believe that they should teach and debate it in class of what side you think is a better theory and, therefore learning all there is to learn. Needs to be prover one way or another anyhow, might be a good way to help speed that along. Course that's my opinion.
I'm going to dumb this down for the non scientists around here - Evolution has been proven. There is no better theory. There is no controversy around it in he scientific communtiy, and nothing that needs to be sped along.
For the scientists (or the non scientific creationists who're going to suddenly switch directions and use the "I thought nothing was proven in science" line) Evolution is one of the best supported theories in modern science, and has more than enough evidence to be accepted as fact, in a general sense. The specifics are, in some cases, still debated, but there is no controversy, and no competing theories.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
There's no scientific controversy about evolution
That's the biggest problem I have with creationists. They claim that there is a big contraversy in scientific circles but the only contraversy is the one they themselves are causing. There isn't a single credible scientific argument against evolution out there.
Every time you ask them for one they come back with the same tired 2nd law of thermodynamics argument that has been debunked several thousand times already.
It's pretty pathetic truth be told. It's like the way the moon hoaxers refuse to listen to explainations and simply repeat their arguments over and over again as if that makes them right. It doesn't. Sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to someone explain why you're wrong doesn't magically make you right.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
It's pretty pathetic truth be told. It's like the way the moon hoaxers refuse to listen to explainations and simply repeat their arguments over and over again as if that makes them right. It doesn't. Sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to someone explain why you're wrong doesn't magically make you right.
NO! THEY'VE GOTTEN TO YOU TOO! I WON'T LISTEN TO THE LIES!!! *puts fingers in ears* LALALAWON'TLISTENLALALAI'MRIGHTLALALALA!!!
-
we have SEEN evolution happen - we have CAUSED evolution to happen
doesn't happen my ass.
People are ****ed up.
Kara.. go get them - i haven't the patience for disproving this bullocks for the 10 billionth time
-
Some people argue that we have not observed one part of a species becoming so radically different from the other that it becomes its own species. Sure the principal of natural selection is pretty damn solid, and most people don't argue with that fact.
-
This whole arguement makes me so glad that I'm leaving the country, or else I would be sucked into the vacuum of stupidity that seems to have claimed most americans in the country.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Some people argue that we have not observed one part of a species becoming so radically different from the other that it becomes its own species.
so how would you define "radically different" keep in mind how similar many diferent species are, like the diferent butterflys wich can be diferentiated only by counting the number of scales on there wings. this line seems like there is some arbitrary limit that for some reason you think has any bareing on reality.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Some people argue that we have not observed one part of a species becoming so radically different from the other that it becomes its own species. Sure the principal of natural selection is pretty damn solid, and most people don't argue with that fact.
The human genetic code is 98% identicle to a common house fly. Radically different? Their genes don't appear to be. Granted you obviously can't have children with other animals because the genetics are different enough not to allow it.
-
AKA different enough that viable offspring could not be produced.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Some people argue that we have not observed one part of a species becoming so radically different from the other that it becomes its own species.
(snipped bottom bit cos not replying)
We've traced it through fossils records, though. After all, the idea of evolution into different species was prompted by the fossil record itself; genetics also explains (the methodology) it on a low-level. AFAIK the main arguements against evolution are based on the obvious problems of gaps in the fossil record, which are themselves perfectly explainable due to proven geological processes and simple common sense.
Even then, AFAIK there's more than enough evidence in support of the basic principle.... what the creationists do, I think, is to use ongoing research into the exact methods (by which evolution occurs) to try and debunk the entire principle. Which is really quite a stupid way to go about it; I hesitate to use the phrase again, but it's wilfully ignorant.
You could say the development of penecillin resistant strains of bacteria is evidence both of natural selection and evolution, of course.
EDIT; IIRC (in really vague laymans terms) the main difference between genetic codes is which genes are 'switched on'. I think there's an example of injecting human eye DNA or similar into a lab rat, and the rat growing a perfectly normal rat eye, simply because of how its genes are turned on.
Like I said, horrible laymans terms which I only vaguely remember. Must read up on it.
-
ok, what about this, animal A can reproduce with animal B, and animal B can reproduce with animal C, but animal A cannot reproduce with animal C, wich animals are of the same speciese?
(by reproduce I mean viable fertile offspring)
what if animal C is the distant offspring of animal B, and animal B is the distant offspring of animal A. obviusly the mateings described would have to be theoretical, as the three animals would never be alive at the same time. this is how specication occurs in evolution, so the arbitrary "not diferent enough" is irrellevent, after enough time a decendent will have gathered enough changes to there genetic structure that they will no longer be capable of produceing an organism capable of life.
-
Blasphemy.
God FTW.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
The human genetic code is 98% identicle to a common house fly. Radically different? Their genes don't appear to be. Granted you obviously can't have children with other animals because the genetics are different enough not to allow it.
98%? Are you mad?
-
Dunno about 98%, but http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2000/nf20001024_378.htm
-
Ok, so 98% was a bit of an exageration. But you get the idea.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Some people argue that we have not observed one part of a species becoming so radically different from the other that it becomes its own species. Sure the principal of natural selection is pretty damn solid, and most people don't argue with that fact.
Wait a sec. We haven't seen a process that takes thousands of years even with a very heavy selection pressure take place in what, the hundred years or so since Darwin came along?
I guess the fact that we haven't seen a nebula start to spin and form a star is proof that current cosmological theories are wrong too.
-
Are the links down for me or for everyone? Reuters claims it has technical difficulties. :(
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
So wait, evolutionists are feeling threatened by something else being taught alongside the only scientific theory in schools?
I fixed your post for you.
Creationism and ID are not science and thus don't belong "alongside" the ToE. They belong in R.E.-class.
Besides, if you take a closer look at the people who are pushing for ID to be teached "alongside" the ToE you'll notice that they're the same people who want creationism to be teached. To them it's just a step by step approach to get their BS into the class-room and respected science out of it.
but hey, what can you expect from people who use "liberal" and "secular" as terms of abuse.
Originally posted by Deepblue
Sure the principal of natural selection is pretty damn solid, and most people don't argue with that fact.
Actually they do since natural selection is inherent in the theory of evolution. "Natural selection" as a concept excludes the possibility of guiding by some being.
But hey, in a way I don't have any problems with people in the Us trying to screw up their educational systems. It'll bite them in the ass eventually when other, better educated peoples rise above them.
(Cause you have to remember that the ToE is a multidisciplinary effort. So attacking the ToE is attacking science as a whole)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
TrashMan the universe makes perfect sense without a god or anything else supernatural - infact it makes a LOT more sense logically.
Some people just cannot fathom that "irrelevant" and "just don't know" are valid answers
WEll, explain the Big Bang in that case...
Science can't find a valid explanation for it. All the theories that they came up with ended up as duds.
-
Superstring theory :p
Membrane interactions causing massive inputs of energy (big bang).
...and to answer the "what started the strings" question, remember that time itself is a human concept. A moebius strip would be a nice analogy to the structure of the universe.
Which leads to an interesting paradox of the universe constantly creating itself. (which fits nice if you want to anthropomorphize the universe as a deity)
In the end though, very simple geometry that endlessly pisses off human attempts to make linear narratives to explain things.
-
WEll, explain the Big Bang in that case...
Science can't find a valid explanation for it. All the theories that they came up with ended up as duds.
Yes, and I just read in the newspaper that science will never again make any discoveries. We've reached the end of the road-- guess we've found god.
-
Don't we need to forget everything we've discovered and replace it with easy homogenized and pre-packaged replacements first? Like pi = 3?
I find it bizarre that having a little bit of difficulty finding an exact explanation of the creation of every atom of physical matter, time, gravity, etc (and in only a few centuries of serious analytical investigation) is considered good cause for attacking science. I mean, it's not exactly supposed to be an easy question, is it?
What do you expect? Immediate human omnipotence?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I find it bizarre that having a little bit of difficulty finding an exact explanation of the creation of every atom of physical matter, time, gravity, etc (and in only a few centuries of serious analytical investigation) is considered good cause for attacking science. I mean, it's not exactly supposed to be an easy question, is it?
Six centuries ago no one knew the answer to what stopped people from simply flapping their arms and flying through the sky. They knew it had something to do with us not having wings but the scientific theories covering aerodynamics were not advanced enough to say why wings were needed.
Does that mean that the scientists who explained the reason as being due to men not having wings were wrong? Does it mean that back then men couldn't fly because God prevented them?
Of course not. Just because a theory is incomplete doesn't mean that it is wrong. Simply that more study is needed before you can say it's right.
Creationists want to say that because science can't explain everything it must be wrong. That is a completely spurious argument as the example above demonstrates.
-
IMO, Science should work with theology and not be the inverse. I think that most if not all scientists have forgotten the end of science, or they prefer it to be the antithesis of religion.
-
Eh?
-
oh, and just what is this "the end of science" ?
if I'm not mistaken the point is to figure out as much as we posably can. religon tells you what the truth is, and your a sinner if you don't beleive them. how can these two not be direct opposites.
science:"I think it's like this because I found all this stuff that sudgets it, and if that's the way it is, then this other thing should happen, lets go see if it does!"
religon:"this is the way it is because God said so, you question it, you burn."
-
Originally posted by DeepSpace9er
IMO, Science should work with theology and not be the inverse.
No. Science it the application of the scientific method. If it deviates from that even in the slightest then it ceases to be science. Theology should work with science, not the other way round.
Science has no agenda. It's simply the best explaination we can prove for any observation. Theology is the one with the agenda and it needs to adapt.
The argument between science and theology is 100% theology's fault for being unwilling to accept the conclusions of science and assuming that it has to discredit them.
-
I've always seen it the other way around. When I read cosmology books, the authors don't take a dismissing view of religion. Fundamentalist groups, however dismiss science prima fascie pretty regularly.
Science is not about disproving religion or killing God or denying faith. Science is about explaining the observed facts and trying to deduce new facts from that basis. Let me say that again:
Science is about explaining the observed facts and trying to deduce new facts from that basis.
The core concept of science is not "You're Wrong," but "I may be wrong." To translate the concept into action, the scientist makes a statement (a hypothesis), then goes about trying to disprove it. As soon as it is shown to be invalid somehow, it is reexamined, the flaws are sought and a new statement is made and subject to the same critical process again. There's this general misconception that it works in reverse (making a statement and proving it true, damn the evidence to the contrary).
If the concept of evolution goes against the Creation hypothesis (not a theory, mind. a hypothesis), does that deny God or religion in general? No. It may cast doubt in someone's mind on the details of religion, or someone's idea of God, but it does not actually attack either. It just means that there's another hypothesis to form and then test.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
No, it has nothing to do with that. The problem is that the "creationsists" want a RELIGIOUS theory to be taught in a SCIENCE class. The "evolutionists" have no problems with it being taught were it belongs, in a RELIGIONS class.
Creationism isn't a science.
And if you're going to say that a religious theory should be taught in a science class, then they might as well teach witchcraft in a medical class.
Have you ever gotten a joke in an email from your (theoretical, if need be) girlfriend and wondered whether it should be filed away under "Humor" or under "GF Correspondence"?
Just because creationism involves a religious element does not mean that it doesn't also belong in a discussion about the possible origins of life.
EDIT: I'd toss in here an observation that the Bible has never been proven wrong (and, indeed, cannot be proven wrong), but I really don't have the time, energy, or resources to follow through with debating the point.
One thing I do know, as an example, is that until a few scant years ago (like, less than a dozen IIRC), there was NO historic/archeological proof of the existance of a Pontous Pilate (sp?) outside of the accounts in the 4 gospels. Then, X amount of years ago, the ubiqutious "they" discovered an ancient coin with his name engraved there.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Just because creationism involves a religious element does not mean that it doesn't also belong in a discussion about the possible origins of life.
Ah. But it doesn't belong in a discussion of scientific possible origins of life and therein lies the reason why it can't be taught in science class.
Let me put it this way. If you want to teach sex ed then anything about fallopian tubes and what ovulation is can be taught in science because it is biology.
Stuff about using condoms, abstinence and how you'll feel if your boyfriend dumps you straight afterwards and moves onto the next girl (The bastard!) doesn't belong in science class. It's not science. It has no place there.
Originally posted by Sandwich
EDIT: I'd toss in here an observation that the Bible has never been proven wrong (and, indeed, cannot be proven wrong), but I really don't have the time, energy, or resources to follow through with debating the point.
Only cause you change the definitions of what it means when you are proved wrong.
"Circle of the Earth" = Earth is flat and circular (until someone proves that the Earth isn't flat)
"God created the Earth in 6 days" = 144hours (until geological evidence shows that can't be true so 6 days must not be literally 6 days)
-
sandwich just because a mundane claim of the bible "person X existed" can be independantly supported doesn't affect the credibility of any other claim in the book (Such as "person Y came back from the dead") even if you can also prove person Y existed [but are obviously unable to prove they came back from the dead]
More Generally
Given a document that makes to unconnected [logically] claims A dn B. If A is proven true that doesn't mean B is any more or less likely to be true.
Nobody disputes the mundane claims of the bible "person A existed, city b was sacked by god's army, the people were once in slavery", etc - they say: "you have no evidence for the extraordinary claims [supernaturalism] so you cannot claim it to be true"
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Ah. But it doesn't belong in a discussion of scientific possible origins of life and therein lies the reason why it can't be taught in science class.
Let me put it this way. If you want to teach sex ed then anything about fallopian tubes and what ovulation is can be taught in science because it is biology.
Stuff about using condoms, abstinence and how you'll feel if your boyfriend dumps you straight afterwards and moves onto the next girl (The bastard!) doesn't belong in science class. It's not science. It has no place there.
Only cause you change the definitions of what it means when you are proved wrong.
"Circle of the Earth" = Earth is flat and circular (until someone proves that the Earth isn't flat)
"God created the Earth in 6 days" = 144hours (until geological evidence shows that can't be true so 6 days must not be literally 6 days)
That's assuming that were talking earth days here, which we obviously aren't.
-
The Bible contains Historical accuracies, certainly, Jericho, quite possibly the great flood and several other major events or places have been either confirmed or revealed by it, however, a scientist cannot turn around and say, 'I'll ignore what 98% of evidence suggests and concentrate on the few anomolies because they produced results that are different the rest'.
This is my particular problem with 'Intelligent Design', they can assume the role of 'If the design is intelligent, then the designer would have tried to cover their tracks, so it's the anomolies we are looking for, not the 'normal'. You cannot add personality to science, the moment you start thinking of nature as 'sentient' you start looking for personailty, and that destroys the entire purpose of science, which is to remain dispassionate and believe only that which you have evidence for, and then, only until disproved.
It's that Ethos which pushes our knowledge, you cannot sit back and say 'oh, God did that bit', you have to explain the process, that's how mankind takes apart the world around him, by making stories about how it works. You could describe a circuit board and how it works as a story, the power goes in, the power heats the wire in the bulb, which glows as it emits the energy, the power returns to the source. However, we all know that what is really going on in there is far far more complex. That is where science lives, finding out those 'stories' in every last detail.
If you simply skip entire chapters, assigning them to some unknown Author (A Nom de Plume of God), then you are damaging the very tool that explains the universe around us.
Ok, finished :D
-
Originally posted by Kazan
More Generally
Given a document that makes to unconnected [logically] claims A dn B. If A is proven true that doesn't mean B is any more or less likely to be true.
On the contrary: If you have a book of statements, some of which can be factually decided (i.e. proven or disproven), and every single factual statement that has been factually decided has been proven, then that increases the overall credibility of the book.
So if the book asserts a factually decideable statement that hasn't ever been disproven, then the odds of that statement being true are improved, simply based on the historical credibility of the rest of the book.
-
Its not the factually decideable parts that are at issue, is it? Kaz is pointing out that its the parts that are decidable only on faith that are at issue.
-
Goober5000 it only increases the credibility of _related_ claims logically speaking.
"a man existed" is not logically connected to "he arose from the dead" -- they are completely independant claims.
as for Flipside's reference to 'the great flood': he is correct it's entirely possible that story is based upon fact.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm
http://www.ocean.udel.edu/blacksea/history/noah.html
this PDF gives a date of 7150 years-ago or 5145 BCE http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/david.franzi/Seminar/Noah's%20Flood/Uchupi%20&%20Ross%202000.pdf
-
Umm. The bible never being proved wrong doesn't make intelligent design any more scientific. Science isn't for disproving faith. For that matter, evolution doesn't "disprove" intelligent design either. So all this bible accuracy talk is derailing this thread.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
That's assuming that were talking earth days here, which we obviously aren't.
I'd tell you to go find me a planet with a 7 billion year long day but for the fact that you've missed my entire point.
It's obvious that the bible doesn't mean Earth days only because science has proven that the universe and the solar system aren't only a few days apart in age. As a result religious people have changed from taking that as 6 days literal to 6 days metaphorically.
Get it now? My point is that if you disprove any fact in the bible people will tell you that it's a metaphore or an allegory to avoid saying that it's wrong. The goalposts are moved back whenever something appears to be false so that it can be said to be true again.
For instance on the 3rd day God created plants. On the 4th day he created the Sun and the Moon. Try as you might that is the wrong way round so instead we get wishy-washy explainations of how that isn't a fact or an error but something else.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Only cause you change the definitions of what it means when you are proved wrong.
Hmm, sounds suspiciously like scientific methodology, don't it? You have a theory that states that XYZ appears to be true. When presented with observed evidence that contradicts that theory, you change the theory to adapt - if possible - and continue on.
Originally posted by karajorma
"Circle of the Earth" = Earth is flat and circular (until someone proves that the Earth isn't flat)
"God created the Earth in 6 days" = 144hours (until geological evidence shows that can't be true so 6 days must not be literally 6 days)
"Circle of the Earth" is a mistranslation. The English equivalent of the Hebrew word is "round" - it can mean either "round", "circlular", or a few other related terms; Hebrew is very interconnected at the level of root meaning of the word.
As for 6 days, see the link below for the theory that satisfies my limited understanding of such things.
Originally posted by Kazan
sandwich just because a mundane claim of the bible "person X existed" can be independantly supported doesn't affect the credibility of any other claim in the book (Such as "person Y came back from the dead") even if you can also prove person Y existed [but are obviously unable to prove they came back from the dead]
All I was saying was that there are a number of "things" that were completely unsupported outside what the Bible said about them. There was (at the time) no evidence whatsoever to support what the Bible stated. But as time went on, and as new facts were revealed in the sciences (archeology, in this case), they supported what the Bible already stated to be true.
And what I'm saying with this is that it is my belief that the Bible's various stated events that have yet to be proven wrong or right will eventually be proven to be right. It is my belief, not something that I am forcing you to believe. However, and this brings us back to topic, I am "forcing" you to listen to what I believe (you don't have to believe it of course), just as I have listened to what most modern science currently "believes" (or "holds", if you prefer) to be true. There is no "this is what you must believe" stuff going on, no forcing or anything like that. It is simply, to put it in the "worst" light possible, an issue of "know thine enemy".
Originally posted by karajorma
The goalposts are moved back whenever something appears to be false so that it can be said to be true again.
Once again, is this any different from the scientific method? There is truth, and there is theory. Truth is scientifically unattainable; the closest we can get is a theory which fits all available facts and is contradicted by nothing currently known. Generally speaking, such theories can and are accepted as truth, but one must keep in mind that they aren't truth in and of themselves, they are our perception of truth.
Take quantum physics for example. From my limited and vague understanding, it has tossed many theories that were just about as proven as proven can be on their ears. It didn't necissarily prove them wrong, but under different, previously unobserved conditions (ignoring the whole Schroder's Cat thing for the moment), things behave... differently.
So we adapt those "proven" theories to fit the newly discovered facts before us. Gravity still attracts, light is still constant - under certain conditions. ;)
Finally, as for the 6 days thing, I've posted this before (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,17072.0.html), but here it is again (http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html).
-
ok...
1 Kings 7:23 He [Solomon] made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim [diameter = 10] and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. [circumference = 30]
PI!=3
there are few things in the world wich can be easily and conclucively proven to be absolute fact, math is one of those things, the bible says something that is circular in shape will have a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30, if this were true PI would equal 3, wich it doesn't. the bible is very clearly and precisely wrong here.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Have you ever gotten a joke in an email from your (theoretical, if need be) girlfriend and wondered whether it should be filed away under "Humor" or under "GF Correspondence"?
Just because creationism involves a religious element does not mean that it doesn't also belong in a discussion about the possible origins of life.
EDIT: I'd toss in here an observation that the Bible has never been proven wrong (and, indeed, cannot be proven wrong), but I really don't have the time, energy, or resources to follow through with debating the point.
One thing I do know, as an example, is that until a few scant years ago (like, less than a dozen IIRC), there was NO historic/archeological proof of the existance of a Pontous Pilate (sp?) outside of the accounts in the 4 gospels. Then, X amount of years ago, the ubiqutious "they" discovered an ancient coin with his name engraved there.
Whoa.... waittamo. There's a hell of a lot of difference between the existance of a person mentioned in the bible to the creation of the universe. I'd say it's pretty inevitable real events & people have been mythologised in the bible; it's not a simple black and white situation where the only possibilities are (for example) Jesus existed and was son of god, or Jesus didn't exist atall. The existance of, say a deluge can lead to a flood myth; it doesn't mean that a) there was a global flood or b) said flood was sent by an ominipotent diety, etc.
To me it's pretty obvious that the bible is taken literally and metaphorically in a way that's best suited to try and preserve it's 'truth'. When a literal statement (such as the creation of the earth in 6 days) can be disproven, it suddenly becomes a metaphor. There's absolutely no reason why the old Testament can't be a simple piece of mythology created as a result of a few hundred years of tribes or individuals retelling their folktales, and the new testament a similarly mythologised version of the religion that developed around that.
Creationism can be happily put into a discussion about the creation of life. Just not in a scientific one, because it's theology, not science.
-
Sandwich people are trying to force others to have your faith (it isn't worthy of the term belief because a belief can rest upon evidence - faith is explicity belief without evidence) by legislation here in the united states - this forcing creationism into science class is one of those assaults upon the rights of people who do not believe in their garbage
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Hmm, sounds suspiciously like scientific methodology, don't it? You have a theory that states that XYZ appears to be true. When presented with observed evidence that contradicts that theory, you change the theory to adapt - if possible - and continue on.
The difference is that science says it's fallible and that parts of the theory are bound to be incorrect. Creationists assume that every single part of the bible is literally true up until and even after having their nose rubbed in evidence that contradicts this. And even if they do admit to being wrong they simply claim that it's still all true and merely a metaphor. Quite simply the difference is that science is willing to say "We got it wrong".
Originally posted by Sandwich
As for 6 days, see the link below for the theory that satisfies my limited understanding of such things.
The hypothesis (I refuse to call it a theory) is full of errors and misunderstandings of physics but lets skip all the working and go straight to the conclusion.
The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.
I am getting chills, but they're mainly over the fact that someone could have done so little research on those fields as to have gotten his numbers so wrong.
Firstly the theory has been made in such a way as to make sure that the numbers add up to give the age of the universe so he's not getting any credit for that being within the scientifically accepted range (which is 12 to 20 Billion years so he had a pretty good chance of getting there.). Lets look at the rest though. It's much easier to follow this if I work this claim backwards from modern day.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.
For those who don't know the bible the 6th day is from the time after God created the sea animals and birds (they're from the fifth day) until the bible's historical record starts. That means that God can't have created any sea animals or birds on this day because he created them on the fifth day. Guess what. 250 million years is not only older than man (6 million for the first hominoids) but is older than the dinosaurs. So just on the first interval we've already run into trouble because whales are not older than the dinosaurs and birds only appeared in the jurassic period.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
Including the time from the previous day that means the period between 750m years ago to 250million years ago is when God created the other animals. Well we already know the birds and whales stuff is a load of crap so lets look at the rest. Sorry but that's a load of sash too. Well presevered bacteria can be found in rocks 3,500 million years old so he's out by nearly 2 billion years. You're only going to get out of that one by claiming that only multicellular life counts and that is a huge is a cop-out.
Even if you do that he's still wrong about the birds. Not only were they not around at this time but there were lifeforms on land for the last 100 million years of this day dispite the fact that only the non-existant birds were supposed to be living there.
The fourth day - one billion years.
4th Day. God created the Moon, Sun and stars. Lets face it this one is f**king ridiculous. Not only does it have the sun as being younger than the Earth but it means that we shouldn't be able to see a single star more than 1.75 billion light years away as they would be too far away for their light to have reached us yet. He'll probably try to explain that away with some of his wishy-washy universe was expanding crap but he can't get round the fact that he's put an upper ceiling on the age of the sun and moon at 1.75 billion. The Sol is 5 billion years old and the moon is over 4.5 billion years old.
Wrong again.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The time for the creation of plants. I'd say that he was close to correct on this one if he means bacteria but the bible is pretty clear what it means by plants.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Grass didn't appear until after the dinosaurs died out. Which means that this hypothesis is out by at least 1.7 billion years.
Actually lets make it simpler than that. Multi-cellular life of any kind only appeared about 600 million years ago. He's missed that window by over a billion years.
The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
Okay. I'll pretty much give him these two. You can put the age of the Earth within the dates he gives for the second day and you may possibly be close to the age of the universe for the first one (Although you could be out by as much as 4 billion years)
So what have we got. The first point on the graph he got correct because science had already provided to him and he needed to use it. Out of the other 6 points he got one correct (within a huge margin of error) and drew a straight line.
That's not science. The first thing you learn in statistics is that you can't draw a graph with only two points.
Originally posted by Sandwich
All I was saying was that there are a number of "things" that were completely unsupported outside what the Bible said about them. There was (at the time) no evidence whatsoever to support what the Bible stated. But as time went on, and as new facts were revealed in the sciences (archeology, in this case), they supported what the Bible already stated to be true.
If that was all you were saying I wouldn't have objected to it. The bible is the written history of the Hebrew people. Since no other cultures were hugely interested in the Hebrew people it's obviously going to contain lots of information that no one else bothered to record.
My objection is to you claiming that nothing in the bible has been proven false. I've given you several examples of things in the bible which aren't true (The Earth being older than the Sun is my favourite) and yet you still persist in saying that it's all 100% correct.
What is even more bizarre is that you continue to maintain that evolution can not be true because Genesis tells us that God created man and then go on to insist that Genesis was deliberately simplified so that common folk could understand it. Wouldn't ommitting all the stuff on evolution and simply saying God created man also fall under that heading?
-
bobboau > sandwich
karajorma > sandwich
[MK announcer]Science WINS[/mka]
ok now i'm done trolling.
Seriously Sandwich - the bible has been proven wrong on an entire slew of things - and we can even literarily and linguistically trace the foundations of it's stories not only to multiple authors - but to entirely different cultures and previously existing polytheistic religions.
It's time to step back and honestly reassess yourself - the biggest question must be why do you choice to have faith in this: and you need to answer this honestly - no circular answers like 99.95% of individuals give*
*the other 0.05% upon hearing themselves utter the answer quickly loose their faith
-
hrmm apparently one of the admins finds it funny to put links to dumb threads in my title
-
consiter it an addmition of defeat. :yes:
-
No, that was there before this thread started.
-
*Thinks about jumping in this subject, creating a huge fat heated debate...But, then notices that he has too much modding to do.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
No, that was there before this thread started.
no.. it wasn't
-
Still, it works.
I never knew of that thread.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Hmm, sounds suspiciously like scientific methodology, don't it? You have a theory that states that XYZ appears to be true. When presented with observed evidence that contradicts that theory, you change the theory to adapt - if possible - and continue on.
First, You're confusing a THEORY and a HYPOTHESIS and second, you're putting the cart before the horse. Lets take that in reverse order though.
Cart and Horse: Science is about explaining observed facts. Not guessing an explanation and then seeing if facts fit. A subtle difference. "I wonder what will happen when I drop a bowling ball off a cliff? I bet it sits there," is not science. Science is illustrated more by the following: "Sandwich just dropped a bowling ball off a cliff and I observed it falling. What made it fall? Maybe he pushed down on it as he let it go. How can I test this idea?" The next step, of course, comes when I envision a test, like dropping another ball and pushing down on it as I do. I perform the experiment and amazingly, my experiment confirms that when I release a ball with a downward push, it falls. Is my job done? No. I now have to see if there are other possible explanations, or if my experiment is repeatable, or if my experiment is flawed in some way. I'll start with the obvious: repetition. It works every time! Done yet? No. Gotta see if the experiment is flawed. Lets do it all the same but this time, try a sideways push, or an upward push, or no push at all, or best of all, lets do it again, trying it each way. Now I see there was a problem: the ball falls no matter how I push, or even if I don't push at all. The experiment was flawed, and I have to discard my explanation and try another.
Now we have to understand what a 'theory' is and isn't. The best way to explain that is to look back at my experiments. My initial explanation (downward push on release) is called a "hypothesis". Its an reasoned guess based on observation. When a hypothesis is disproven, it has to be reworked. When it is proven, it has to be doubted and retested. Only after it has been doubted and retested, and retested, and retested, and doubted some more, and continues to pass all possible tests over time does it become a theory. And you know what happens then? It is doubted and retested some more; the only difference is that there's not much hope of it being disproven (think relativity. we've just put up another experiment to test it. Again. In case relativity might be wrong).
-
Originally posted by Kazan
no.. it wasn't
Well, it wasn't added that late in the thread (Sometime between 10:45pm and 5:10am uk time on Aug 12).
I know who added it and why, though, and it wasn't because of this thread. And also who's idea it was (not mine, incidentally, much as I like the immortalisation of the Clangers).
-
afaic it's a cheap attempt to pork me off
and you know what: it's not working
it's just making me wonder who is being lame
-
Well, if it's not working, you don't have anything to worry about then? :)
-
being worried and being curious are two different things. It would be nice to know which administrator was being immature and trying to provoke a response out of me
-
I think that Karajorma has pretty much got it all covered.
Btw, didn't the bible say the earth was 6,000 years old? I'm honestly not sure because I never read it. :)
I think that the biggest objection that some people have with this whole is that Christianity has a proven track record of being anti-science. For a long time, anyone who said the Earth revolved around the sun was burned at the stake. I think people are seeing this as yet another attempt by the Christian churches to discredit science. That part is just speculation though.
-
No... You're thinking of Catholilism.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
No... You're thinking of Catholilism.
Which just happens to be the original Western version of Christianity, no?
Now where did I put those gnostic gospels...
-
OT
Why doesn't the Vatican sell of all of the fancy paintings and gold and stuff and use the money earned for charitable work? The Catholic Church seems to be an incredibly massive personification of the word hypocrite.
-
Tons of stuff in the bible is wrong. Bob's mentioned pi equalling three, but there's lots of other stuff too.
Chronicles 16:30 says that "the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved". So no travelling around the sun or rotating on its axis for planet earth. Nosiree. (A static earth is also mentioned in Job a few times, Psalm 104 and all over the place).
Or what about Psalm 19, which says that the sun moves around the earth?
What about Jonah 3:3 which calls Nineveh a city of 3 days journey (about 60 miles in diameter), even though Nineveh was only about 3 miles in diameter when it was dug up?
What about Matthew 13:32, which says that mustard seeds can grow into a trees, when they in fact can't.
There's stuff like hat all through the bible.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
OT
Why doesn't the Vatican sell of all of the fancy paintings and gold and stuff and use the money earned for charitable work? The Catholic Church seems to be an incredibly massive personification of the word hypocrite.
I never thought I would hear myself say this, but you're right.
I'm starting to believe that churches are just for profit enterprises in disguise. We have an arch diocese in Portland declaring bankruptcy because of that clergy sex abuse scandal.