Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
U
Mavafanculo
New member
its amazing that we still have to put up with this crap in the 21st century.
the republicans will make this the next wedge issue to get the christian conservatives to the polls next election, the same way they used the gay marraige diversion last time.
the republicans will make this the next wedge issue to get the christian conservatives to the polls next election, the same way they used the gay marraige diversion last time.
U
UA_Iron
Guest
Genocide.
I love the weasel words too, "intelligent design." Trying to give some kind of merrit to a silly idea invented thousands of years ago which no one can prove in the least bit.
I love the weasel words too, "intelligent design." Trying to give some kind of merrit to a silly idea invented thousands of years ago which no one can prove in the least bit.
T
The Shadow
Guest
Speaking of back-peddling.
The Catholic church has officially changed their stance on "limbo".
For hundreds of years, the stance was that those who were:
1- Born before Christ
2 - Died before baptism
...were not allowed into Heaven.
I guess the idea was that babies are born without sin and have committed no sin. If they die before knowing Christ, why were those souls sent to Hell.....
The Catholic church has officially changed their stance on "limbo".
For hundreds of years, the stance was that those who were:
1- Born before Christ
2 - Died before baptism
...were not allowed into Heaven.
I guess the idea was that babies are born without sin and have committed no sin. If they die before knowing Christ, why were those souls sent to Hell.....
U
UA_Iron
Guest
EnderJE said:
eh, physics dictates that force = mass X acceleration.
so if Newton was your God and Force is your religion then its all good.
kethnaab
New member
"Ninth-grade biology students were presented with a four-paragraph statement saying that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that there are "gaps" in the theory. The statement invited students to consider other explanations of the origins of life, including intelligent design."
I don't see anything wrong with this above.
There are gaps in the theory (remember, "theory", not "law") of evolution, so why not present the student with other alternatives?
am I missing something here? it does say other alternative*S*, meaning not just intelligent design, right?
I don't see anything wrong with this above.
There are gaps in the theory (remember, "theory", not "law") of evolution, so why not present the student with other alternatives?
am I missing something here? it does say other alternative*S*, meaning not just intelligent design, right?
T
The Shadow
Guest
UA_Iron said:
I dunno....the speed of thought must have pretty much instantaneous acceleration..
U
UA_Iron
Guest
blut wump said:
depends on how religious you are.
T
The Shadow
Guest
its electrical current right??
must be swifter than that
must be swifter than that
Vicious cycle
New member
I don't seem to recall my Pastor being forced to give a short speech every Sunday morning explaining why, "Christians and Sunday school students were presented with a four-paragraph statement saying that Christianity is a theory, not a fact, and that there are "gaps" in the theory. The statement invited Christians to consider other explanations of the origins of life, including the big bang theory."
Get my drift?
Get my drift?
B
BrothaBill
Guest
HS Lifter said:
I think he was taking an anti-Christian tact, though it was so poorly stated I could be wrong
B
BrothaBill
Guest
Hiatussin said:yeah so maybe parents shouldn´t have the right to raise their kids their way?
The power of the State is the essence of this argument really.
Vicious cycle
New member
BrothaBill said:
Yes, you are wrong. It wasn't meant to be anti-Christian or anti-intelligent design. It was just an observation, just because you didn't really get it hardly means it was poorly stated however.
Vicious cycle
New member
Hiatussin said:
Neither is public education
HS Lifter said:
I guess neither one of you got my drift
Last edited:
Vicious cycle
New member
BrothaBill said:
No, the power of a single school district is the essence of this argument. This case only concerned Dover Area Schools, not all of PA.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
Vicious cycle said:
obviously youve never heard of legal precedence
coldblue1955
New member
Well soon God will Ban the judge for life of life!
coldblue1955
New member
creation gets my vote.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
hooch said:
and how do you know they are extinct?? Circular reasoning aside please
Mavafanculo
New member
note to Killahbee - add me to the coldblue bombing donors list.coldblue1955 said:
mountain muscle
New member
Vicious cycle said:
WOW.
Just Wow.
Where is the punchline?
kethnaab said:
The problem is..... Intelligent Design is not science and does not belong in a science class room. The Scientific Method requires that phenomenom be explainable in repeatable experiments producing the same result. E.g. chemical reactions, physical equations. Even evolutionary changes can be expressed in repeatable experiments that produce the same results. (Remember the theory of evolution states that evolution is the product of genetic mutations. If you manipulate gene X in a human being and achieve a result then manipulating the same gene x in a mouse achieves the same response) Don't forget Mendel's pea plant experiments!
Intelligent Design says that there are supranatural forces that brought life into existance. Since supranatural forces cannot be verified/displayed/or expressed in repeatable experiments that produce the same result Intelligent Design cannot be science.
It just doesn't belong in science classes.
Vicious cycle
New member
BrothaBill said:
Since none of your posts are ever meant to inform or enlighten, but rather belittle and disparage I think it’s time I add you to my ignore list. You are, BTW, only the second person in two and a half years to make this list. Unlike 75th or others that I may disagree with, your posts are mean spirited and make no one think about the topic or their position on that topic, but instead think about what a rude person you are. I would have expected more from a Mason and you do your San Diego lodge a great disservice. I’m sure this won’t bother you a bit, but I hope in the future, before you hit the enter key you think to yourself, “Is this helping the topic at all”?
Best of luck in your future endeavors,
-VC-
JavaGuru said:
Exactly, there are lots of creation stories. Every culture has their own. Our western/judeo-christian culture has adam and eve in the garden of eden....
What about those cultures that claim a giant fish spit up the world, or the mating turtle theory? how about we teach the old viking-pagan creation theories?
You can't prove evolution either. And teaching (forcing us to learn about a secular theory is just as religious in context as teaching about creationism!)
Whatever happened to presenting both sides un-biased and allowing the individual to decide for themselves which theory they will adopt if any based on the facts presented.
Oh what, the Michael Needows are offened if we do not believe they way they do and want to force us to believe that way. By not allowing alternate theory's whether spiritual or not you bias the masses in a belief system whether it involves a diety or not and that belief system is as much a religion as any out there today.
Both the conservatives and liberals as well as the extremists need to stop their bullshit. The liberals have to understand that by forcing us to be atheist in school they are forcing state sponsored religion upon us which teaches things like Dawranism, there is no god, tolerance, etc. The conservatives need to realize that by attempting to force Creationism upon us without the competing theories and to force us to not believe in Atheism, etc is as much a state sponsored religion again.
School should be for the training of the minds, teach patriotism without fanatiscm, to sponsor free and new thought and at the same time allow boys to be boys and girls to be girls without getting all pc and feel good, etc.
This country is on its way down and unless you and everyone else in this country can start working together it is only a matter of time.
Whatever happened to presenting both sides un-biased and allowing the individual to decide for themselves which theory they will adopt if any based on the facts presented.
Oh what, the Michael Needows are offened if we do not believe they way they do and want to force us to believe that way. By not allowing alternate theory's whether spiritual or not you bias the masses in a belief system whether it involves a diety or not and that belief system is as much a religion as any out there today.
Both the conservatives and liberals as well as the extremists need to stop their bullshit. The liberals have to understand that by forcing us to be atheist in school they are forcing state sponsored religion upon us which teaches things like Dawranism, there is no god, tolerance, etc. The conservatives need to realize that by attempting to force Creationism upon us without the competing theories and to force us to not believe in Atheism, etc is as much a state sponsored religion again.
School should be for the training of the minds, teach patriotism without fanatiscm, to sponsor free and new thought and at the same time allow boys to be boys and girls to be girls without getting all pc and feel good, etc.
This country is on its way down and unless you and everyone else in this country can start working together it is only a matter of time.
kethnaab
New member
exactly.
the irony of all this is that the liberals who get bent out of shape about Christians not wanting another viewpoint to be offered, yet....those same liberals don't want to recognize that forcing Darwinism down someone's throat is no different than forcing Christianity down someone's throat.
now, cycle, a far better analogy for what you were trying to present (I think?) is not one of a pastor being forced to provide another option, but in fact, a gathering of Darwinists being forced to provide another option.
You go to school to learn about "stuff". You go to church to learn about religion, you go to a Darwinian lecture to learn about Darwin's theories.
You don't need to provide Darwin-type "caveats" during church, you don't need to provide Christian-type "caveats" during the Darwin lecture.
School is a whole different animal.
the irony of all this is that the liberals who get bent out of shape about Christians not wanting another viewpoint to be offered, yet....those same liberals don't want to recognize that forcing Darwinism down someone's throat is no different than forcing Christianity down someone's throat.
now, cycle, a far better analogy for what you were trying to present (I think?) is not one of a pastor being forced to provide another option, but in fact, a gathering of Darwinists being forced to provide another option.
You go to school to learn about "stuff". You go to church to learn about religion, you go to a Darwinian lecture to learn about Darwin's theories.
You don't need to provide Darwin-type "caveats" during church, you don't need to provide Christian-type "caveats" during the Darwin lecture.
School is a whole different animal.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
bluepeter said:
prove it
bluepeter said:
Evolution has not been proven and is not fact, it is a THEORY and that is all it is
There are missing facts, etc in the theory as much as there is in creationism
For example, what if god did exist and he created life and he used evolution as the vehicle to which current life exists? Isn't that just as plausible as the totally astronomical, statistical odds to which life just happened to start here on planet earth? And then given that rarest of events, what are the odds that it would occur somewhere else in the Universe?
My point is that by limiting theories and claiming one as fact when it is not is propagand and false science at best and not worthy of further thought by the academic/general population
chesty said:
As has been said upthread, there is no question that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. The "theory" involves how the mechanisms of evolution work.
Creationism apologists do not appear to understand the meaning of the word "theory". Y'know, gravity is a "theory" too, but we're not in any danger of suddenly floating off the face of the Earth.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
OK, everyone, lets agree to the definitions of
1) Intelligent design
2) Theory of Evolution
3) Distuinguish between Fact and Theory
Then we can jump straight off into the muddied waters of trying to prove truths and what knowledge really is vs. beliefs
1) Intelligent design
2) Theory of Evolution
3) Distuinguish between Fact and Theory
Then we can jump straight off into the muddied waters of trying to prove truths and what knowledge really is vs. beliefs
UA_Iron said:
What is excellent about this? More children burning in Hell for eternity because of the devils hocus pocus called evolution. Why not teach both and let the kid make up his/her own mind. You know why ya'll don't because your stupid darwin monkey theory is silly and you don't want the truth being taught. You are sick person for thinking this is excellent.
It is not a question of whether or not evolution occurs it does, it is a question as to how man got to the planet or came from the planet.
Look at the similarities in the two versions:
Evolution:
Man started out from the earth (ocean, dirt, whatever he came from the earth) first from a single-celled organism to eventually over time become man
Creationism:
Man was formed from the dust of the earth now god (whichever one you worship) did not give the recipe` for creating man, he just said he was formed from the dust of the earth and then breathed life into him.
In the end We are all but dust in the wind. From whince we came we shall return. That is a given indisputable fact.
Look at the similarities in the two versions:
Evolution:
Man started out from the earth (ocean, dirt, whatever he came from the earth) first from a single-celled organism to eventually over time become man
Creationism:
Man was formed from the dust of the earth now god (whichever one you worship) did not give the recipe` for creating man, he just said he was formed from the dust of the earth and then breathed life into him.
In the end We are all but dust in the wind. From whince we came we shall return. That is a given indisputable fact.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
curling said:
define evolve first and Ill explain it to you
U
UA_Iron
Guest
curling said:
...God of liberty, come forth from the abyss mighty, SATAN.
Well, the emotional furor over both is ridiculous. From a god standpoint does it matter whether it was evolution or just straight he made you as to whether or not your going to get to heaven?
From an evolutionary standpoint does it matter whether or not a god created man or not? How does this affect your beliefs? Does one way or the othe prevent you from being happy and doing what you want?
Pretty simple those who do not believe in god are taking the chance that he does not exist and they will simply die
Those who believe in god are taking the chance that he does exist and they will live forever.
Pick a camp and live in it, but don't force someone to believe your way. Give them the information and let them decide. In the end we are still humans and friends.
From an evolutionary standpoint does it matter whether or not a god created man or not? How does this affect your beliefs? Does one way or the othe prevent you from being happy and doing what you want?
Pretty simple those who do not believe in god are taking the chance that he does not exist and they will simply die
Those who believe in god are taking the chance that he does exist and they will live forever.
Pick a camp and live in it, but don't force someone to believe your way. Give them the information and let them decide. In the end we are still humans and friends.
U
UA_Iron
Guest
chesty said:
It's a matter of principle. Basically "you fucken christian fundamentalists have no right to forge school policy."
U
UA_Iron
Guest
curling said:
Evolution has been proven, observed, solidified. The method in which it happens is the "theory" part because you cant sit back and watch a species evolve over a period of millions of years due to obvious constraints.
But most of all it embodies the idea of the scientific method - the search for knowledge and spawning new thought and ideas which. it's a quest for knowledge.
Christianity on the other hand hasnt a shred of proof that a God exists and they try to push it on school children? It's a method of flawed logic which brings the person to the conclusion that only god could have created this world so complex (intelligent design). This is clearly inappropriate for a learning environment.
Vicious cycle
New member
curling said:
Because the State doesn't get to make policy about Church topics or teachings. That is why we have the separation of Church and State. The voters of Dover, PA made their voices heard anyway when they booted all but one (I believe) of the School board members who started this. That's still the cool thing about this country, you don't like something...vote!
Hiatussin
New member
UA_Iron said:
Big evolution is impossible to see in lab because it takes too much time.but you can do some small things.
Take a population of 200 mice. Test them for any particular thing, agressiveness for instance.
Kill the 100 least agressive mice. Let the others repopulate to 200.
Repeat. repeat. repeat.
they´re friggin PISSED mice.
Problem is inbreeding after a while. that´s why you´d need like 200.000 mice
UA_Iron said:
Really? Proven huh? Well where is the monkey thing that evolved into a man then? And if it is sooo true how come it ain't happening today?
Also are you saying the big bang is a proven fact too?
That is not true whatsoever. There is lots of proof that the God is real. For one Bible prophesy about the Jews becoming a nation again. Well they have? They are also in the world spotlight all the time surrounded by several evil nations but still they survive and thrive. So you can doubt all you want ua iron but one day you will still bow your knee to Jesus that He is Lord but it will be too late. And that is a shame because He loves you and wants the best for you.
javaguru
Banned
chesty said:
Actually, Christians are taking the chance there is no sky deity that will reward them. It means countless hours of lost time while you supplicated at his temples and wasted money as you supported his con man priests with 10% of yoru income. Not to mention the wasted opportunity to develop your own vision of morality and spirituallity through introspection and observance.
Science class is about learning science, not mythology and superstision. Start a class on comparative religions if you want to teach different versions of creationism. By trying to combine the two you are doing a disservice to science by blatantly ignoring the scientific method, which is the foundation of science.
beefcake28
New member
I wasn't going to get into this, but...
This thread has turned into a creationism purist vs. Darwinism argument. Don't mistake intelligent design for a pure creationist standpoint, they are very different.
True intelligent design does not dispute evolution or the big bang, it actually supports it. The only difference is that intelligent design disputes the "singular common ancestry" from Darwin’s original theory of evolution. Other than that, intelligent design only infers that there is a God or Creator behind it all....
All of the fossil records we have regarding man evolving from ape can nearly fit inside a shoe box... yet scientists are making assumptions on what "they" looked like and such based on what they want to fit into their beliefs. Their recreations of such intermediate states are only their opinion of what they want them to be. There are no complete skeletal/fossil records to conclusively show that the re-created "impressions" resemble anything that may have existed, unlike the obviously more conclusive records of dinosaurs, etc. The only "evidence" is the skull and few other bone fragments and such... that may or may not actually be what they want them to be. You can't recreate an entire organism from a skull fragment based on your "interpretation" and call it fact.
This thread has turned into a creationism purist vs. Darwinism argument. Don't mistake intelligent design for a pure creationist standpoint, they are very different.
True intelligent design does not dispute evolution or the big bang, it actually supports it. The only difference is that intelligent design disputes the "singular common ancestry" from Darwin’s original theory of evolution. Other than that, intelligent design only infers that there is a God or Creator behind it all....
All of the fossil records we have regarding man evolving from ape can nearly fit inside a shoe box... yet scientists are making assumptions on what "they" looked like and such based on what they want to fit into their beliefs. Their recreations of such intermediate states are only their opinion of what they want them to be. There are no complete skeletal/fossil records to conclusively show that the re-created "impressions" resemble anything that may have existed, unlike the obviously more conclusive records of dinosaurs, etc. The only "evidence" is the skull and few other bone fragments and such... that may or may not actually be what they want them to be. You can't recreate an entire organism from a skull fragment based on your "interpretation" and call it fact.
javaguru
Banned
beefcake28 said:
Science class is about learning science, not mythology and superstision. Start a class on comparative religions if you want to teach different versions of creationism, intelligent design is a creationist belief. By trying to combine the two you are doing a disservice to science by blatantly ignoring the scientific method, which is the foundation of science. There is no evidence of an all powerful universe creator and claiming such without any sort of evidence or way to test/observe/reason your assertion goes against the scientific method, it must be falsifiable (possible to prove it false). The mere fact that religion relies on faith as opposed to reason means it's the antithesis of the scientific method which requires observation and reasoning. A hypothesis can never truly be proven, only supported or disproven.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
JavaGuru said:
Imagine that from birth our hypothetical friend Mary is put to live in a room where no colors are shown. Her food, her books, and even the color of her skin are all in black and white. Now imagine that Mary, a very bright girl, has a wealth of information at her disposal, and through concentrated study she comes to learn everything there is to know, which includes that colors are mental processes in the brain and how the brain produces them. But she has never experienced color.
If she is set loose and starts experiencing colors, will she have learned anything new?
beefcake28
New member
I never said it should be taught in schools... I simply said don't confuse creationism with intelligent design.JavaGuru said:
I say teach the facts and let the students draw their own conclusions about if there is a Creator behind it all or not. The conflict comes when certain things are taught as fact (this applies to both sides, religious or not), when they are not proven to be fact... and are merely the perception of someones interpretation.
The scientific method, when applied to religion, is a circular arguement.
blut wump
New member
It should be easy enough to devise experiments to test common Western religion. The efficacy of prayer on healing against the healing of athiests springs to mind with a control group not having prayers.
A lot of study is inappropriately placed under the banner of 'science'. Science requires the possibility of running experiments with controls. Lacking this possibility, a study is not a science.
A lot of study is inappropriately placed under the banner of 'science'. Science requires the possibility of running experiments with controls. Lacking this possibility, a study is not a science.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
blut wump said:
They have, people who are religious live longer and have better health and overall quality of life.
Thinking positive helps heal and routinely based on spiritual beliefs.
The overall population who denies the genetically passed on drive for a religion are most likely to abuse substances or people, far more likely actually.
blut wump
New member
Regarding black and white Mary, I'm not convinced that she would have developed the ability to see colour never having experienced it during her formative years. I think those born blind and later having their sight enabled have this problem.
Interesting consideration on the positive outlook and the genetic drive for religion. Religion is often used by addicts as a refocussing point for their addictions. A tendency towards addiction is, I believe, genetic.
Interesting consideration on the positive outlook and the genetic drive for religion. Religion is often used by addicts as a refocussing point for their addictions. A tendency towards addiction is, I believe, genetic.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
blut wump said:
From the research I did in University on Cognition we were fully aware of the "fact" that no matter where you are or where you are from or born on alone on a deserted island, you will develop a belief system.
Religion is crosscultural and innate in every human being.
That, one cant deny, Atheism, Agnosticism, Christian, Catholic. We, as far as research purposes lumped that into the same category of a belief system.
The Atheist and Agnostics had far higher rates of antisocial attitudes and psychosociopathic tendencies.
Its a belief system no less, everything is, cant deny it
Substance abuse is a crisis of the spirit
javaguru
Banned
beefcake28 said:
My point was simply that creationism, intelligent design is a creationist belief, should be taught in religion classes and not in science classes. The scientific method has to be taught in a science class, it's the foundation of science. The belief in an all powerful creator deity does not fit within the scientific method, it requires faith which is the opposite of the scientific method. Either have your children go to church/private religious school or demand a comparative religion class at your child's school.
javaguru
Banned
BrothaBill said:
Gaining knowledge Vs. experience are two different things and having knowledge doesn't require experience; I know the history of WWII and I don't have to experience WWII to know the history. If she knows the extent of human knowledge than she would "know" colors exist even though she can't experience them, the scientific method can be used to prove colors. Just like we "know" atoms exist, yet I have never seen them. Atoms have evidence for their existance through the scientific method, unlike god.
again, creationism nor evolution has been proven to be the course that man took. I for one am not a fucken christian, and again why are you getting your shit all bent out of shape?
The way I see science is the teaching of all possibilities, whether or not you prescribe to them. We are intelligent people who can form their own opinions when presented with the evidence or lack there of. A true class in something involves both aspects of the argument. If it involves only what you want us to hear that is called COMMUNISM, FASCISM, RACISM, A DICTATORSHIP, ETC.
Put down the gloves for a minute and consider all aspects of the subject. Form your own opinion but don't for one minute think that you can force me to believe your way.
...and, btw, I never said what I believe in so don't go ASS U ming that I am a christian or a believer in either evolution or creationism.
The way I see science is the teaching of all possibilities, whether or not you prescribe to them. We are intelligent people who can form their own opinions when presented with the evidence or lack there of. A true class in something involves both aspects of the argument. If it involves only what you want us to hear that is called COMMUNISM, FASCISM, RACISM, A DICTATORSHIP, ETC.
Put down the gloves for a minute and consider all aspects of the subject. Form your own opinion but don't for one minute think that you can force me to believe your way.
...and, btw, I never said what I believe in so don't go ASS U ming that I am a christian or a believer in either evolution or creationism.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
JavaGuru said:
Yes, you dont know, Knowledge vs. Beliefs. Everthing that you have not experienced, you must doubt on the search for the truth.
A collective history of man passed onto you, History rewritten. It all must be doubted.
Not for how to succeed in the world, but for you to understand the truth.
Unless you experience it, then you must doubt it given fallacy principles.
beefcake28 said:
Please. This is patently false. Even the single fossil specimen "Lucy" would more than fill a shoe box.
There were crates full of fossils from the "Peking Man" site in China, all of Homo erectus specimens. They were lost during WWII, but fortunately not before good plaster casts had been made.
Last edited:
javaguru
Banned
BrothaBill said:
Religion is a "canned" belief system, an opiate for the masses, it stunts a person's spiritual and emotional growth. It's like starting steroids a week after you start weight training, you'll never understand how to eat and train on your own without a big crutch. Religion served a useful purpose before civilization developed effective police forces and legal systems to control the masses. An all seeing and all knowing sky deity who would punish you for violating society's norms was the most effective way of policing the people. The ignorance of primitive superstisious people made it particularly effective.
javaguru
Banned
I didn't have to disembark from a landing craft on June 6, 1944 to know that's the date the allies invaded France, the evidence is overwhelming. I didn't have to fire a rifle on the beach to know the battle of Tarawa occured from Nov. 20-23 1943, my father provided first hand accounts. I can test every published study to determine it's veracity, I don't have to be part of the original research team, that is the foundation of science. Can you re-test Moses's burning bush? Please replicate the Red Sea parting. This is the difference between science and faith, we can establish historical battlefields and re-construct them from evidence. Believing in a god requires faith without evidence, completely against the scientific method. Teach your beliefs in church or a religion class, don't taint science.BrothaBill said:
javaguru
Banned
chesty said:
Read my previous posts again, no scientist can claim a "fact", a hypothesis can only be disproven or given supporting evidence. The belief in a creator defies these scientific principles, teach science in science classes and religion in religion classes. Believe what you want but don't mention God as a creator in a science class. Faith requires one to believe in a creator without evidence, the antithesis of science. It should not be taught in a science class.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
JavaGuru said:
lol, all words of another man just like the bible. Lets reduce it to its essence, really.
You have a belief system based on your experience.
Your experience cant supercede others and say its right.
Seriously, you dig your holes deeply in debate
javaguru
Banned
Once again, words from a veteran you can refute in person and official records you can review. Opposed to a document written thirty years after the fact and subjected to multiple interpretations. Sorry, I was orginally trained as a historian....not even a comparison.BrothaBill said:
JavaGuru said:
That is interesting given that no one had ever seen a an atom, electron, proton, etc yet based on hypothesis and faith a model was put forth. John Dalton had never seen an atom and had only indirect evidence. Yet we now know what the atom and it's make looks like.
Prove to me that god does not exist. Not with emotional fervor, but hard cold scientific fact.
Prove to me that I have no soul with scientific fact.
Prove to me that I evolved from a single-celled organism and that the mechanism for creating that very first life is fact.
Prove to me that there is life or no life after death. All that can be proven is that we physically die.
There are things that cannot be proven and never will be, yet that does not detract from their scientific relevance and importance. God does not have to have the blessing of the scientific community to be a plausible solution or cause.
In fact, many of the worlds greatest minds all acknowledge one thing, that a god had to exist. Einstein for one. The greatest scientific minds in history all realized one thing, to patently assume that something does not, cannot exist is arrogance of a gross order. A great saying is this: When all other possibilities have been illiminated, the only possibility left is the truth, no matter how absurd it is. (or something similar)
Why is the liberal populace so afraid of the concept/belief system of God? What are they afraid of? I can't figure this one out. They speak of equality, enlightening the mind, etc, yet, they blatently refuse to acknowledge that other ideas exist.
javaguru
Banned
chesty said:
1. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist; That is the burden of those who make the assertion God does exist, that is mythology,it isn't a hypothesis because it can't be disproven as per the scientific method.
2 See above.
3. There is more evidence and reason indicating you came from a single cell organism than you were spontaneously created from dirt; I'll go with the science.
4. I've made no assertion for life after death; Please provide proof for your opinion based on the scientific method. You die then you die, I have not been presented scientifically supported evidence supporting otherwise.
Finally, you cannot say things will not be "proven" as there is no absolute proof in the scientific method, only evidence. There is evidence for evolution and even though thousands of years have passed ...not one shred of evidence for an all powerful creator deity has been shown(replicatable).
since when did science become science? It was and is as much philosphy as it is the measurement of things. Why can a god not be part of science? By saying we came from a single celled organism you are saying we came from dirt, or as Carl Sagan put it a sludge pool.
Why is your definition of science and more valid than mine or anyone elses?
Let's put it another way.
Hypothesis: God exists
Hypothesis: God does not exist
Hypothesis: Evolution is how man became
Hypothesis: Evolution is not how man became
Hypothesis: Evolution and God are tied together
Hypothesis: Evolution and God are not tied together
Hypothesis: There is life after death
Hypothesis: There is no life after death
Here are the hypothesese some are considered a theory now, but still not proven as fact. That would be the theory of evolution
HYPOTHESIS:
a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
THEORY:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
Why is your definition of science and more valid than mine or anyone elses?
Let's put it another way.
Hypothesis: God exists
Hypothesis: God does not exist
Hypothesis: Evolution is how man became
Hypothesis: Evolution is not how man became
Hypothesis: Evolution and God are tied together
Hypothesis: Evolution and God are not tied together
Hypothesis: There is life after death
Hypothesis: There is no life after death
Here are the hypothesese some are considered a theory now, but still not proven as fact. That would be the theory of evolution
HYPOTHESIS:
a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
THEORY:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
javaguru
Banned
chesty said:
The scientific method is very specific. You have to be able to disprove a hypothesis, otherwise it's a simple opinion(religion). The best you can do with a hypothesis is that you provide supporting evidence. There are two options , disproof or supporting evidence. Please provide generally recognized published supporting studies for an almighty sky deity, admit you have no evidence of an almight sky deity, or provide evidence refuting evolution as a generally accepted principle.
beefcake28
New member
JavaGuru said:
I find it funny how you self-appointed defenders of the scientific method are trying to have it both ways...
Don’t allow religious philosophy to intrude into biology classrooms and texts, you say, for that is to soil the sacred precincts of science, which must be reserved for hypotheses that can be rigorously tested and confronted with data. The next minute you are going around claiming that anti-religious philosophy is part and parcel of the scientific viewpoint.
One of the glories of science is that people come together to do it who have all sorts of religious beliefs, philosophical views, cultural backgrounds, and political opinions. But as scientists they speak the same language...
That said, people who wish to equate science with their own philosophical views (presumably out of vanity) risk doing immeasurable harm both to science itself and to its prestige. They are entitled to their philosophical opinions, but they are not entitled to claim them as the utterances of science. (This includes an anti-religious philosophy as well...)
beefcake28
New member
Just a thought...
if some field of scientific study were able to prove God impossible (I know this can't happen, but for arguments sake...), would it be valid to teach about that field in science classes? Is there a distinction between dogma and that which damages it?
if some field of scientific study were able to prove God impossible (I know this can't happen, but for arguments sake...), would it be valid to teach about that field in science classes? Is there a distinction between dogma and that which damages it?
Last edited:
well, if god is a myth then prove that the hypothesis suppoorting this idea is valid. Tha is all I am asking.
Explain the transmission of gravity. Prove to me that a graviton exists.
God can not be proven nor disproven, but that fact does not render the hypothesis of a god as invalid or false.
It comes down to there are two competing theory's neither of which would be earth shattering if one or the other was proven beyond doubt.
Here is a scientific experiment called a Gedunken (sp)
The cat in the box (better known as Schroedingers Cat)
"Put a cat in a box, with a vile of poison, close the box so that no information (visual, sound, feeling, etc) can be transmitted in any fashion.
Question, is the cat alive or dead? The hypothesis is that the person opening the box to find out will force the cat into one of two states based upon what they choose. Ie collapsing the wave equation into a predetermined state. In this instance forcing the cat to be alive or dead based on the person opening the box. While in the box the cat is neither alive nor dead."
This whole thought experiment and in fact a large part of Quantum theory is based on wave functions being collapsed into a state determined by the one doing the observation. This has been proven. So, again, the belief of the state you will find the cat or the wave function in is the state you will find it in. The key here is belief, no different than the belief in a god or the belief in evolution.
You see, if this kind of discourse were to take place in a classroom (science for example) with the teacher forcing no one opinion on the student this would be acceptable and of great substance.
To patently ignore or refuse to believe in the possiblities of other solutions, outcomes and explanations, is in itself false/bad science.
Explain the transmission of gravity. Prove to me that a graviton exists.
God can not be proven nor disproven, but that fact does not render the hypothesis of a god as invalid or false.
It comes down to there are two competing theory's neither of which would be earth shattering if one or the other was proven beyond doubt.
Here is a scientific experiment called a Gedunken (sp)
The cat in the box (better known as Schroedingers Cat)
"Put a cat in a box, with a vile of poison, close the box so that no information (visual, sound, feeling, etc) can be transmitted in any fashion.
Question, is the cat alive or dead? The hypothesis is that the person opening the box to find out will force the cat into one of two states based upon what they choose. Ie collapsing the wave equation into a predetermined state. In this instance forcing the cat to be alive or dead based on the person opening the box. While in the box the cat is neither alive nor dead."
This whole thought experiment and in fact a large part of Quantum theory is based on wave functions being collapsed into a state determined by the one doing the observation. This has been proven. So, again, the belief of the state you will find the cat or the wave function in is the state you will find it in. The key here is belief, no different than the belief in a god or the belief in evolution.
You see, if this kind of discourse were to take place in a classroom (science for example) with the teacher forcing no one opinion on the student this would be acceptable and of great substance.
To patently ignore or refuse to believe in the possiblities of other solutions, outcomes and explanations, is in itself false/bad science.
javaguru
Banned
Ummm...read my posts..the scientific method only requires that a hypothesis be able to be disproven or have suppoting evidence. God cannot be a hypothesis because it's an opinion, can't be disproven. That's the crux of the scientific method. You have two options, supporting evidence or evidence disproving the hypothesis. Put forth the method by which it will be disproved God exists or have supporting evidence based on the scientific method. You can't, you rely on faith which is the antithesis of the scientific method. Just accept you can't prove God and go back to your superstision. It's your perogative as long as you don't try to teach my children your idiotic beliefs.chesty said:
Similar threads
