The validity of science.

[trapical]

On a side note warri0r, I do find it amusing that during the entire time I read your various posts disregarding prayer and saying it is not the answer my peripheral vision sees this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol, nice.

[warri0r45]

On a side note warri0r, I do find it amusing that during the entire time I read your various posts disregarding prayer and saying it is not the answer my peripheral vision sees this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol, nice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What? It's a killer game. :P

[DaN]

 

 

 

Gravity is far from an unexplainable effect. And all your causes of God can probably be explained by science, but we won't go into that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science has already explained God and why people see visions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The human Brain can show you anything you want to see thats why people witness the statue of mary crying. Statues cant really cry (unless rigged to doso) but your brain can tell you anything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On new years eve my brain told me the bar was 1 Meter closer to my stool then it really was I found this out when I attempted to lean back againsed the bar.

[Saru Inc]

Well, I believe that it is the most accurate way to find things, but is not correct about everything. There are several theories or "facts" that I simply do not agree with.

[warri0r45]

Well, I believe that it is the most accurate way to find things, but is not correct about everything. There are several theories or "facts" that I simply do not agree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you suggest an alternate system of inquiry which uncovers truth and attains knowlege objectively?

[Saru Inc]

 

Well, I believe that it is the most accurate way to find things, but is not correct about everything. There are several theories or "facts" that I simply do not agree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you suggest an alternate system of inquiry which uncovers truth and attains knowlege objectively?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not necesarilly, its the best way I can think of, just not all true.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

Attacking faith isn't debating. I never brought religion into the discussion to prove anything. I stated how I personally view unexplained situations. You put a word on something that isn't known for sure like the origin of the universe and I put on how I view the world through common sense. I'm not saying that not believing in creation isn't common sense but I am using common sense when I believe in what I believe. In other words when I am stating anything religious its more of a "agree to disagree" kind of thing. I'm all for debating science though. That is why I am here. I love science, and I do very well in my science classes. I will be majoring in something science related in college next year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that we got that out of the way. Why does attacking a faith encourage debate at all? All it encourages is flame wars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Realize that things often get out of hand in arguments, mentioned religious views even indirectly and they are fair ground for the next person to discuss. Although I am somewhat curious on what makes religion so special that it can't be debated. You completely bash evolutionist views by stating "my signature is very accurate. It is impossible for a cell to 'occur' by chance." Why isn't an atheist's view under the same protection from debate that you want for faith? I'm not an atheist but being a biology major I have spent hundreds, soon to be thousands of hours studying texts on biology for exams and to further my education on the subject. You can say I have "devoted my life" to biology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what gives you the right to step in and say everything I believe in is false? Personally I believe you can since that is how we learn, but as to why you are offended when people discuss your faith... I am puzzled.

You can discuss my religious views. But seeing as people only do this to pass their side as correct it is quite inappropriate. Especially since their reasoning is usually to prove that religion and science aren't coherent then use scientific circular reasoning to say that religion can't be accurate because it doesn't correlate. No doubt that people will rebuttal the former sentence with some sort of form "religion doesn't go along with science because "insert reason"."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My beliefs go along with science. I believe in every scientific theory that my mind can grasp. If my mind can't grasp something, for example the origin of the universe. I have religion, and all you have is speculation. But seeing as we both choose our paths we agree to disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not offended when you discuss my faith. I just don't think it is very constructive to the conversation to always bash it. Agree to disagree and move on with the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science is only validated if the topic is validated. Saying that all science is validated is as ignorant as me. And that means you have become what you hate :).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish more biology majors would do something more important like study the behavior of alcohol on the brain. Or something a little more psychological beneficial to society then the origin of the universe. True it could be beneficial especially if you hate religion but on the other hand you could be do something that you know is beneficial.

[warri0r45]

 

 

Attacking faith isn't debating. I never brought religion into the discussion to prove anything. I stated how I personally view unexplained situations. You put a word on something that isn't known for sure like the origin of the universe and I put on how I view the world through common sense. I'm not saying that not believing in creation isn't common sense but I am using common sense when I believe in what I believe. In other words when I am stating anything religious its more of a "agree to disagree" kind of thing. I'm all for debating science though. That is why I am here. I love science, and I do very well in my science classes. I will be majoring in something science related in college next year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that we got that out of the way. Why does attacking a faith encourage debate at all? All it encourages is flame wars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Realize that things often get out of hand in arguments, mentioned religious views even indirectly and they are fair ground for the next person to discuss. Although I am somewhat curious on what makes religion so special that it can't be debated. You completely bash evolutionist views by stating "my signature is very accurate. It is impossible for a cell to 'occur' by chance." Why isn't an atheist's view under the same protection from debate that you want for faith? I'm not an atheist but being a biology major I have spent hundreds, soon to be thousands of hours studying texts on biology for exams and to further my education on the subject. You can say I have "devoted my life" to biology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what gives you the right to step in and say everything I believe in is false? Personally I believe you can since that is how we learn, but as to why you are offended when people discuss your faith... I am puzzled.

You can discuss my religious views. But seeing as people only do this to pass their side as correct it is quite inappropriate. Especially since their reasoning is usually to prove that religion and science aren't coherent then use scientific circular reasoning to say that religion can't be accurate because it doesn't correlate. No doubt that people will rebuttal the former sentence with some sort of form "religion doesn't go along with science because "insert reason"."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My beliefs go along with science. I believe in every scientific theory that my mind can grasp. If my mind can't grasp something, for example the origin of the universe. I have religion, and all you have is speculation. But seeing as we both choose our paths we agree to disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not offended when you discuss my faith. I just don't think it is very constructive to the conversation to always bash it. Agree to disagree and move on with the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science is only validated if the topic is validated. Saying that all science is validated is as ignorant as me. And that means you have become what you hate :).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish more biology majors would do something more important like study the behavior of alcohol on the brain. Or something a little more psychological beneficial to society then the origin of the universe. True it could be beneficial especially if you hate religion but on the other hand you could be do something that you know is beneficial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't help but feel that you're alligning people who study evolution to people who hate religion. If that's what your getting at, then it's overwhelmingly false. Also, you saying that you wish to fill the gaps with god is fine, your belief is your belief, but that dosen't mean that the science that attempts to explain those gaps is wrong.

[Flametrooper]

Why does everyone think science and God are incompatible? They're not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science and religion, now, those two clash a little more, but with a little intelligence and a little less blindness, the two can go side by side.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faith and Reason - very different, but each one without the other is only an incomplete half of a greater whole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If only everyone could realize it's best to reconcile religion and science, then people would stop arguing and fighting about such silly issues and work together to use both science and faith to make the world better.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

You can discuss my religious views. But seeing as people only do this to pass their side as correct it is quite inappropriate. Especially since their reasoning is usually to prove that religion and science aren't coherent then use scientific circular reasoning to say that religion can't be accurate because it doesn't correlate. No doubt that people will rebuttal the former sentence with some sort of form "religion doesn't go along with science because "insert reason"."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My beliefs go along with science. I believe in every scientific theory that my mind can grasp. If my mind can't grasp something, for example the origin of the universe. I have religion, and all you have is speculation. But seeing as we both choose our paths we agree to disagree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not offended when you discuss my faith. I just don't think it is very constructive to the conversation to always bash it. Agree to disagree and move on with the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science is only validated if the topic is validated. Saying that all science is validated is as ignorant as me. And that means you have become what you hate :).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish more biology majors would do something more important like study the behavior of alcohol on the brain. Or something a little more psychological beneficial to society then the origin of the universe. True it could be beneficial especially if you hate religion but on the other hand you could be do something that you know is beneficial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't help but feel that you're alligning people who study evolution to people who hate religion. If that's what your getting at, then it's overwhelmingly false. Also, you saying that you wish to fill the gaps with god is fine, your belief is your belief, but that dosen't mean that the science that attempts to explain those gaps is wrong.

Wow and I tried my hardest not to be cryptic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No I realize that lots of religious people believe in at least microevolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now science isn't wrong, I should have stated something along the lines of 'in the mean time'. But seeing as my faith isn't in science but rather God it doesn't really matter to me. But that doesn't change the fact that I am interested in scientific discovery.

[Tigra00]

This argument is so tired even *I* won't participate in it anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here guys, I'll sum it up:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religiousd00d: I have no proof, but I have faith, and my faith is proof. Also, the Bible is proof, 'cause it says X here a Y here, and that means it's true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scienced00d: Huh? You're a moron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latter being correct.

[Guest XplsvBam]

This argument is so tired even *I* won't participate in it anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here guys, I'll sum it up:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religiousd00d: I have no proof, but I have faith, and my faith is proof. Also, the Bible is proof, 'cause it says X here a Y here, and that means it's true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scienced00d: Huh? You're a moron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latter being correct.

Well if anyone had any doubts about there being a God before you can sleep well tonight. Tigra must be God. He is so incredibly wise and all powerful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Claiming that you know a lot about science doesn't make it true :-s . I probably have a better background in evolution and science then some amature claiming that "evolution r0x l33t b1g t1m3 becu4ase rel1igion is stup1d."

[Mercifull]

Considering you cant even grasp the basic I really don't think that you know more of evolution that most people here. As for people saying things like "evolution r0x l33t b1g t1m3 becu4ase rel1igion is stup1d." perhaps you could link us to people that have said that, i don't recall anyone saying that.

[Guest XplsvBam]

Considering you cant even grasp the basic I really don't think that you know more of evolution that most people here. As for people saying things like "evolution r0x l33t b1g t1m3 becu4ase rel1igion is stup1d." perhaps you could link us to people that have said that, i don't recall anyone saying that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have a very good grasp of evolution, maybe that is why I don't believe in it. Even if you don't think it is plausible, it is possible. You can't disregard all reason just because evolution appears to be perfect to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I say I don't believe in evolution this is what I don't believe in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Cosmic Evolution ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ Evolutionist Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.

 

 

 

2. Stellar Evolution ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ How the stars, galaxies etc. formed

 

 

 

3. EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s Evolution ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.

 

 

 

4. Macroevolution ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.

 

 

 

Do believe in:

 

 

 

5. Microevolution ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But seeing as most people on these forums are amatures, they think I am only referring to microevolution. But I do believe in the idea of microevolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolutionist pass off proof of microevolution as proof of all evolution. Which is complete BS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seeing as most evolution is speculation it can't be entirely true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plenty of people have said evolution = good, religion = bad. I really don't need to cite any of these comments for you, do I?

[Tigra00]

 

This argument is so tired even *I* won't participate in it anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here guys, I'll sum it up:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religiousd00d: I have no proof, but I have faith, and my faith is proof. Also, the Bible is proof, 'cause it says X here a Y here, and that means it's true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scienced00d: Huh? You're a moron.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The latter being correct.

Well if anyone had any doubts about there being a God before you can sleep well tonight. Tigra must be God. He is so incredibly wise and all powerful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Claiming that you know a lot about science doesn't make it true :-s . I probably have a better background in evolution and science then some amature claiming that "evolution r0x l33t b1g t1m3 becu4ase rel1igion is stup1d."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said religion was wrong and science was right in my post, I said that non-religious people ARE right when they tell you you're stupid. The Bible isn't proof of jack squat, and neither is faith. God has NEVER had a SHRED of proof for himself. Evolution has, however.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And why would you believe in Microevolution but not Macroevolution? Is there not the chance the Macroevolution is just Microevolution on a large scale? That being, that all it is, is a bunch of Microevolution shoved together until it's considered "Macroevolution". Why is that impossible? Because the fossil record doesn't support it? That hardly has any meaning to me at all, considering that they've only found like 7 T-rex skeletons out of the probable MILLIONS of them (at least) that ever walked the Earth. Sometimes, you have to think that either we have yet to find it, or it won't be found because it wasn't in the right conditions to fossilize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or you can just believe a book written by humans is the COMPLETE answer to the universe. :roll: Then it's only a matter of "WHICH" one is right. :lol:

[Mercifull]

Interesting how you chose to copy and paste a large section of your post XplsvBam. I can tell due to some of the characters used in the post. Why is this?

[Parabola]

It's because he copied and pasted from this page:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you've shown time and time again, Xplsvbam, you are incapable of thinking for yourself - you have to plagiarise from your zealot idols, be it the author of that site or the currently incarcerated Kent Hovind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not try having a thought of your own for once? Your arguments are not from your knowledge. They are paraphrasing fundamentalist websites.

[Korla]

Okay, nice topic IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1st of all. All of this discussion has a pre-determined basic principle of life that isn't excactly mentioned, and would be the only argument against a scientific reasoning, and I find it incredibly odd that no "God-believers" has brought it up. That is to ask; is it really worth it to go for all the scientifical breakthroughs? Is all the pain it brings worth it compared to a simple life and dying when we're around 30? Fighting hard to get food on the table and being sick, but being much happier as compared to the stress and pains in the goal-oriented life we live today. As I see it it's the ONLY valid argument against science, because if you have accepted that breakthrough like fire, the wheel, warm housing, etc. is something we want, then the every single step after this down the line is validated by you wanting more comfort in the first place. And I need to say no more than this to you non-believers in science, to me it's all or nothing in this debate. All the comfort in the world, or no comfort.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd of all. There's a problem concerning gravity which I think leads to some pretty neat consequences. People who believe in science are forced to "believe" that there are some things we can't see (a 4th dimension known as time, and the space-time web which is rather non-intuitive). Which suddenly brings faith into science, even though it may be the only rational answer, we're forced to believe something which at first doesn't seem plausible at all, that time as we know it has a beginning and possibly an end. Whereas people who believe in "faith" argue against this with the argument that it's non-intuitive. I think it's a strange counter-argument, considering to believe in what they believe in you have to have faith and not be rational.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why not try having a thought of your own for once? Your arguments are not from your knowledge. They are paraphrasing fundamentalist websites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So many flaws in that argument, how many of YOUR ideas do not come from some text-book but rather from the 4th level of rational thinking, as Plato suggested? I'd say none, and neither can you expect his ideas to come from him, but rather from what he's learned somehow. And the only reason you can call it fundamentalist is cause you have society on your side, and didn't you learn it's not cool to pick on people because they are alone in kindergarten? I did. Pick on them cause they pick on you or make bad stuff happen, not cause someone else told you they were bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I should add that maybe everything isn't all cool in what I wrote, but I'm HIGH on coffee from writing my critical thinking essay all day...*phew*..back to work.

[Mercifull]

Therese a big difference between having an idea based on someone else's' research than blindly copy and pasting from someone else who has no clue what they talking about either.

[Korla]

Therese a big difference between having an idea based on someone else's' research than blindly copy and pasting from someone else who has no clue what they talking about either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see you criticizing his understanding of what he's written, rather just the fact that someone else said it first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not on his side, it may well be that he has no grasp on the matter discussed, I'm just saying that your way of counter-arguing him is counter-productive. And there's not much in his post to suggest he has no understanding of what he's written.

[malo2]

 

Therese a big difference between having an idea based on someone else's' research than blindly copy and pasting from someone else who has no clue what they talking about either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see you criticizing his understanding of what he's written, rather just the fact that someone else said it first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not on his side, it may well be that he has no grasp on the matter discussed, I'm just saying that your way of counter-arguing him is counter-productive. And there's not much in his post to suggest he has no understanding of what he's written.

I think you should spend a little more time reading what has been said previously. The person being criticized has many times said that he has a lot of experience with evolution and everybody else is an "amateur", I would be pretty pissed if someone who knows nothing about the topic called me an amateur.

[assassin_696]

2nd of all. There's a problem concerning gravity which I think leads to some pretty neat consequences. People who believe in science are forced to "believe" that there are some things we can't see (a 4th dimension known as time, and the space-time web which is rather non-intuitive). Which suddenly brings faith into science, even though it may be the only rational answer, we're forced to believe something which at first doesn't seem plausible at all, that time as we know it has a beginning and possibly an end. Whereas people who believe in "faith" argue against this with the argument that it's non-intuitive. I think it's a strange counter-argument, considering to believe in what they believe in you have to have faith and not be rational.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting point, except the non-intuitive nature of physics that you refer to is proven by calculation, and hence less a leap of faith than more of a way of looking at things which is hard for us to grasp at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We've always lived in a middle sized world, yet if we were to suddenly look at a similarly developed species of thinking, logical intellectual beings but ones who lived on the atmoic scale, the laws of quantum mechanics would be completely intuitive to them, but relativity would be mind blowing. And vice versa.

[Korla]

 

 

Therese a big difference between having an idea based on someone else's' research than blindly copy and pasting from someone else who has no clue what they talking about either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see you criticizing his understanding of what he's written, rather just the fact that someone else said it first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not on his side, it may well be that he has no grasp on the matter discussed, I'm just saying that your way of counter-arguing him is counter-productive. And there's not much in his post to suggest he has no understanding of what he's written.

I think you should spend a little more time reading what has been said previously. The person being criticized has many times said that he has a lot of experience with evolution and everybody else is an "amateur", I would be pretty pissed if someone who knows nothing about the topic called me an amateur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I read it enough, thanks, my point is simply that even though he may stoop to a low level there's no reason for you to do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd of all. There's a problem concerning gravity which I think leads to some pretty neat consequences. People who believe in science are forced to "believe" that there are some things we can't see (a 4th dimension known as time, and the space-time web which is rather non-intuitive). Which suddenly brings faith into science, even though it may be the only rational answer, we're forced to believe something which at first doesn't seem plausible at all, that time as we know it has a beginning and possibly an end. Whereas people who believe in "faith" argue against this with the argument that it's non-intuitive. I think it's a strange counter-argument, considering to believe in what they believe in you have to have faith and not be rational.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting point, except the non-intuitive nature of physics that you refer to is proven by calculation, and hence less a leap of faith than more of a way of looking at things which is hard for us to grasp at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We've always lived in a middle sized world, yet if we were to suddenly look at a similarly developed species of thinking, logical intellectual beings but ones who lived on the atmoic scale, the laws of quantum mechanics would be completely intuitive to them, but relativity would be mind blowing. And vice versa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, but it will always be hard to grasp I think, counting something and proving it to people with advanced mathematics is noway near as powerful and mind-blowing to the average joe as is "apple on the head" to take a well-known example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intersting way of looking at it with the atomic-sized intelligence, dunno if it's possible, but there's a new way of grasping stuff, will go back to that when I'm not as stressed and can philosophize about it some more. I like to consider the 4th and possible 5th, 6th dimensions, etc. Which have been "proven" much in the same way. What would a being created on 4 planes be like? Is it at all possible? How will they see us? Are we created on 4 dimensions? Is it at all graspable? Can we ever "see" this side of ourselves? There're so many questions.

[Guest XplsvBam]

Interesting how you chose to copy and paste a large section of your post XplsvBam. I can tell due to some of the characters used in the post. Why is this?

Because when writing about definitions I try to get the most accurate thing I can find rather then making it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting how you have to make tangents when you don't have anything else to say.

[Korla]

Ugh, even though I might have started it a little, I was atleast name-calling people on MY side of the debate, can we please keep this topic clean? Religion-science discussions can be fun, but not like this, it's gonna get locked soon.