See We're not religious nuts!.....

[Jedi Master Dakari]

Look,

 

I'm sorry I blew off the handle a bit. I never meant for my part in this topic to progress as far (and as heated) as it has. LoneWolf16, I'm sorry for calling you stupid, only with a little more words. I don't think you are.

 

I just hate to see that there are so many people (even in the South) who are adamantly apposed to any shape, form, or fashion of religion. Even to the point where they choose to not hear, nor recognize, any attempt to support it.

 

I don't know. But again, I'm sorry. I hope that we can all forget about this. I also hope I have not offended anyone too badly to where they hate me now. That was never my intention. :">

[Diamond]

Love and Peace!

[WITHTEETH]

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.

[Vashanti]

Science at its root is founded on rational discourse and is not supposed to be biased by pre-conceived notions. Thus, Science and Religion are indeed two different animals.

 

Science starts with trying to find the answer to what is observerd; Religion starts with giving you the answer to what is going on.

 

Besides that point, there are many many religions and religious viewpoints, many with differing answers as to where we came from or where we're going or what it's all about. What one schoolteacher says about this or that from a religious interpretation may contradict or even offend a student of a different faith.

 

Science at its heart is supposed to be free from those different points of view (but it's not, in reality -- when a paper gets published refuting previously widely accepted hypotheses, it often takes much longer for the scientific community to accept or to test on its own than it should).

[Hell Kitty]

If Johnny and Jane Christian are taught the theory of evolution, they may see that it is incompatible with traditional Christian beliefs which will cause them to turn away from the church, convert to atheism, and the next thing you know they'll be turning gay and performing abortions on one another.

 

The answer to this problem? Fool Johnny and Jane into thinking the "theory" of creati.. I mean intelligent design is just as valid as the theory of evolution, and considering it's the only one compatible with their religion it must be true.

 

God's in his heaven, all's right with the world.

[Diamond]

The argument is already over.

Come on, people!

Is there a need for more sarcasm?

[Hell Kitty]

The internet always needs more sarcasm.

[Fionavar]

No actually as a paradigm, sarcasm is to be avoided as it leads to SPAM. The discussion, though heated, has been generally constructive. I am hopeful it shall stay that way ...

[Lucius]

And keep in mind that before you shun people for their faith in their religion (mine being the Lord and his inspired Word), try reading the biblical account of Noah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I really think I won't. There are way more exciting fantasy books out there to read first.

[CoM_Solaufein]

I thought it was mythology just like tha other god patheons of the past? "

[~Di]

Just a reminder that scientific "theory" is considerably more than speculation. It is accepted scientific principle based upon substantial proven fact and hard evidence. Please do not toss out the word "theory" as if it's nothing more than a blind guess by the scientific community and on a par with a "theory" mentioned in a religious text written thousands of years ago. That is deliberately distorting and categorically untrue.

 

Everyone can believe what they wish. However, when religious interpretations make it into the public classroom and are force-fed to children under the guise of "science", then I do believe that it is unacceptable, no matter how the justification is worded.

 

Okay, that's my thought on the matter. Bye.

Edited November 11, 2005 by ~Di

[Rosbjerg]

something that always make me laugh .. Christian parents screaming "bloody murder" everytime their children is being taught something other than what they percieve as "good Christian" .. I mean if they are so secure in their faith, and their children are as well, wouldn't they be able to listen to others points of view without being offended? shouldn't they just be laughing at us for being so ignorant ... so blind as to not see the finger of God in creation?

 

 

Edit: Damn that thing is distracting Arkan!

Edited November 11, 2005 by Rosbjerg

[Arkan]

Isn't evolution observable through controlled experiments?

[Nartwak]

Yes.

[Darkside]

Wow, a girl goes out to buy Ratchet: Deadlocked, and when she comes back she's got her own religion? ...I think I'll call it nerdism.

 

And keep in mind that before you shun people for their faith in their religion (mine being the Lord and his inspired Word), try reading the biblical account of Noah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I really think I won't. There are way more exciting fantasy books out there to read first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Let's play nice folks. I don't agree with athiests, but do you see me going around calling them blind fools? No, because that's basic trolling. Remember,

 

[random evil guy]

Can't get your point here. Are you saying that the theory is invalid based on this fact? Yes, it does have inconsistencies as any theory in science, since our knowledge is limited. But it is a base for research.

 

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...

[random evil guy]

Can you people not comprehend?

 

I am not saying that scientists sould give up and discredit everything they believe in! That is NOT what I am saying.

 

In believing God exists, and that he created man in his image, I likewise believe that he gave mankind the intelligence it has to even work with science.

 

To get a little more clear:

 

You have all said it yourselves that the evolution account of "creation" is a theory. I agree with you 100%. Am I saying that it should not be taught in schools because of that. No! However, you are all advocation that it should be taught as scientific fact. I disagree. It is theory; it has flaws and discrepencies. And until those discrepencies are smoothed over, until the flaws are no more, UNTIL IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE FACT, it should not be taught as fact.

 

My point is very easy to understand. You all are just reading too much into what say, simply for arguments sake.

 

However, from this point forward, I agree to disagree. And keep in mind that before you shun people for their faith in their religion (mine being the Lord and his inspired Word), try reading the biblical account of Noah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

here is a clue for you, ever heard of falsifiability and popper? look it up, you could sure need it...

[WITHTEETH]

Can't get your point here. Are you saying that the theory is invalid based on this fact? Yes, it does have inconsistencies as any theory in science, since our knowledge is limited. But it is a base for research.

 

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

In assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never  to fit the additional data.

Edited November 11, 2005 by WITHTEETH

[Commissar]

"If there are Gods, you can only hope that their ultimate plan is world socialism administered by evolutionist school boards under the command of Hugo Chavez."

-J&J Long

[random evil guy]

Can't get your point here. Are you saying that the theory is invalid based on this fact? Yes, it does have inconsistencies as any theory in science, since our knowledge is limited. But it is a base for research.

 

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

In assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never  to fit the additional data.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

what the hell are you rambling on about? evolution, the natural phenomenon, is a fact. it is proven. the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. what creationists object to, is this concept they call 'macro evolution'. even they accept that evolution is a proven fact, but they refer to it as 'micro evolution'.

[Diamond]

Theory is not a fact by definition.

It is never proven.

Why? It is theory.

 

Even in mathematics you have a number of base assumptions, that break things if assumptions are changed.

 

Scientific theory is based on assumptions and empirical evidence (experiments). Assumpitons, obviously are made to reduce the problem in question from infinite set of problems and experiments never prove anything, but merely show that something may be true.

 

Recall how newtonian physics was a "fact" before the beginning of XX century.

[WITHTEETH]

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:

[random evil guy]

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:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

do you consider gravity to be 'subjective'? remember, i'm not talking about the theory of gravity, but the physical phenomenon of gravity.

 

keep in mind, there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. one is the actual physical process, while the other tries to explain it...

[Diamond]

do you consider gravity to be 'subjective'? remember, i'm not talking about the theory of gravity, but the physical phenomenon of gravity.

 

keep in mind, there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. one is the actual physical process, while the other tries to explain it...

 

You refer to gravity as an empirical term (you feel it) and try to compare it to evolution which is abstract, so it is not appropriate.

 

Evolution theory is a theory, it can't be observed, since it is abstract, not empirical. What you observe in nature supports theory of evolution, but doesn't prove it. No science have "proofs" aside from abstract disciplines as mathematics and computer science.

[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.

Edited November 12, 2005 by WITHTEETH