WITHTEETH

Everything seems relative. Think about it, to Christians, Christianity is a proven fact(in their own way). Science itself does not claim its theories as facts. It is up to us to believe what we want to oblviously. We have to make due with what senses we have right? So in a way everything is a guess, so what is a fact? Facts have changed over time. Its up to the individuals to believe if evolution is a fact or not. Science is just statistics of cause and effect, with connections to other theories that are cause and effect. Its a big web of different statistics. But Correlation doesn't prove causation. so what now? we just have to make our best judgement with what knowledge we do have. Will I accept myself, that evolution happens as a fact? No i want to stay nuetral and keep in mind that these theories just might be wrong once in awhile. Detachment from these ideas will keep a peace of mind when they are proven wrong if ever so. They work now so i will use them now, but when, and if that river ever comes to an end(evolution being proved wrong) i will leave that boat(evolution and move on without hesitation(because i was not attached). RandomEvilGuy, i had to actaully think that through as you can see my thought written down. GREAT QUESTION! thanks.

It is your opinion, not mine(and many others) that evolution is a fact. Its subjective to me. I, like other good scientists, would rather say " well, evolution is the best we have so far." That is my opinion, not yours, and im ok with that. I see you beleive it is a fact, and that is popular to call evolution a fact. In the philosophy of science, science doesn't call itself a fact. Yes it is proven, but correlation doesn't prove causation. We could be wrong and it was under or nose the whole time. In a nutshell, science is not right all the time. And to claim theories as facts would be (to me) overconfident. This is just my opinion remember. Science Rocks! :cool:

You have just proven my point with your "inconsistencies as any theory" line. Evolution (or Darwinism) is a theory. It is not fact. It should be taught as a theory, but nothing more. I might be able to get my point across better if I put it like this: No creation theory (scientific, religious, or otherwise) can be proven to be fact. This is because we simply DO NOT know. you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. why don't creationist get their facts straight before discussing things like these? you're really making a fool of yourself. evolution is a proven fact, while the evolution theory is a scientific theory. just as gravitation is a fact, while the gravitation theory is a scientific theory. both based on solid empirical evidence, but only the former questioned by religious nut jobs... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To you evolution is a fact, thats just another point of view on how to look at truth and science. Another View is that Christianity is a factm according to Master Dakari. I believe that this is relative, subjective. Science does not think of its theories as facts. Maybe the scientists do, but science itself does not. Science has evolved from this because they have witnesses mistakes from the past so many times. A buddhist point of view is that we can never know the truth because its always changing. How do we know we ever absolutely have truth if we don't know everything about something? Its a hard step to make. So we have to take all the knowledge we have and make an objective guess. Science has tweaked these guesses to be consistant. Sciences statistics are consistant, and works great, Im behind it 100% percent! Although correlation does not prove causation. Its an assumption that the cause is actaully the cause of the effect. I just try to remember this stuff to keep an open mind. This is my view im sharing with you. Throw it away if you want. Wiki Def of scientific Theory

This looks like a job for WITHTEETH :cool: MLA Format do?

I am not against religion. I think its great when people find a way to be happy I just simply want science to stay science.

Theories ARENT suppose to be facts! read my post before you argue Jedi Master Dakari. Here, ill make it even easier for you to read this time.

A theory and a "Scientific Theory" are VERY different. Here you go Jedi Master Dakari Wiki Def for scientific theory

Jedi Master Dakari there are more then one way to date. I disagree with you and think that carbon dating is generally accurate. This argument has been done a thousand times already with Carbon dating, and everytime you guys lose this battle. Your view on carbon dating is through creationists version of science where they can bend the facts of science. Just like how they did in the 2nd law of thermodynamcs, a mutation with added information and IR. Science is based on empirical evidence Your religion is based on Faith They belong in seperate realms, or at least in seperate schools.

love your sig

And should evolution be presented in your sunday church as a valid possibility? Faith is NOT a way to think, thus it has no place in schools. faith [fayth] (plural faiths) noun 1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof 2. religion religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it Microsoft

Wow Jedi Master Dakari, Your a character. Anyways...

Schools aren't just for teaching this days? hmm, this is new. Now they have to forcefully mention Intelligent design so that kids won't go home confused, and ask their parents "Mom look, i learned an empirical explination for the origin of mankind, what empirical truth does christianity have?"

I think you're missing my point completely. What about those who staunchly believe in creationism, aka intelligent design, who would be forced to hear that their beliefs are wrong. Key word: offending. I think it's fine to teach intelligent design in schools ONLY if it's presented as a theory and not delved into. In other words, present the theory of ID in the classroom as an alternate theory and leave it at that, then go into evolution. And you don't need to "present all sides" as long as you keep the intelligent design theory generic. In other words, make it applicable to any religion/belief. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Its not compatible to all religions. What about hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Humanism, scientiology. This is christianity imposing its will on a practice. Whats next, algebra? ID is not a theory either. When in science, Scientific Theories are the closest things to facts as possible. We just don't call them facts because, humbly thats the best we have so far( that is my view anyway). Christians that are for ID taught in science rooms are imposing there will on science when they have no ground. besides "The world is just to complex, so lets stop thinking" That is called a dark age.

simple logic Science needs to be science. Intelligent design is not science. Thus intelligent design should not be taught in science.

Both sides? No then we would have to teach ALL sides. Flying Speghetti Monster, Pink Unicorns Vishnu, Shakti, That which can only be described as "that", Isis, Madza, Mithra, Isis, Christ, Zeus and on and on and on. I agree with Darkside, Save it for a comparitive religion, christinity, or philosophy class. We did discuss is in my philiosophy classes.

I think Lonewolf is right.

I'm not religious. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Im not Spiderman.

Anything under the Mason Dixie line is super Christy

This is disapointing. It was suppose to come out in the 15th of November, this month. 5 days from now. They really procrastinated on giving us this bit of info. Ohwell, its worth waiting for.

The public are slaves to idols.

Yes i agree. Kansas students and scientists are already getting discrimination from other sates when they apply.

Great points Commissar. I still want to stress though that science(statistics) do not suggest one how to live like christianity. Christianity, as well as the intentions are, some of their values and morals confict with this day and age. The book is aging, and with that age, what is acceptable changes. Change is good(i think). Some of christianity does not allow these natural changes in an orthodox/strict conservative point of view. Another weakness that the bible has from time to time is that it can be so vague, so incoherent, that people can make out whatever they wish from the text.

How would Christians like it if their religion had to be based on positive empirical truths? Scientists don't want their statistics based on logical claims that can't ever be proved. How about neither impose their will on the other, and we all stay happy

Science can be used for evil as well as Algebra. Statistics are evil! " See when Bush famously said "we have to balance science and morals" i think that statement is incorrect because its the equivelant of saying we have to balance algebra and morals. Science is statistics, thats it. You can't balance statistics, unless you plan to cut its progress, which he is successfully doing. He and his "War on science" Theres a war on everything these says aren't there? hohum, I love humanity, i just wish someone would step up and become a better example.