INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Peter on September 22, 2007, 05:11:20 AM
-
Some of you believe in it, some of you don't. Instead of respecting each other's beliefs, lets have a big fight and see who wins.
I find it alarming that so many people don't believe in evolution. I know they have their reasons, and I've studied many of those reasons and found them laughable. Most of the conversations I've had with people about it have been depressing, to say the least, like the girl in my biology class at school who demanded to know why pigs don't turn into cows if evolution is true, and a friend online who asked how there could possibly be a beneficial mutation, which required me to explain what mutations were, how they affected organisms and so on, after which she just repeated the question. If you have some good points to make against evolution, lets hear them. If you don't have good points to make, lets hear the bad ones and have a good laugh at your expense.
-
All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small.
All things wise and wonderful: The Lord God made them all.
God pwns Science, the power of the devil. End.
-
Some of you believe in it, some of you don't. Instead of respecting each other's beliefs, lets have a big fight and see who wins.
I find it alarming that so many people don't believe in evolution. I know they have their reasons, and I've studied many of those reasons and found them laughable. Most of the conversations I've had with people about it have been depressing, to say the least, like the girl in my biology class at school who demanded to know why pigs don't turn into cows if evolution is true, and a friend online who asked how there could possibly be a beneficial mutation, which required me to explain what mutations were, how they affected organisms and so on, after which she just repeated the question. If you have some good points to make against evolution, lets hear them. If you don't have good points to make, lets hear the bad ones and have a good laugh at your expense.
I'm an evolutionist, however I'm indifferent to people not believing in it and I will respect the wishes of the electorate if they decided that christian creationism be taught in schools instead of evolution.
-
I believe in that something created Us all that was Intelligent and smarter than We are in the end.
-
Well if I am going to be absolutely insane I would suggest an omnipotent God (can control time obviously) that creates a world with evidence towards evolution, with fossils and everything already there. This is to entrap people and make them think that God doesn't exist, where that God can punish those who found his planted evidence for not believing in him all along. That would make me laugh and really isn't realistic, but fun to think about.
Evolution as a science isn't really 100% complete, but we are always learning more about it of course. It is a fact though and really can't be ignored that everything has mutated genetically and evolved to some degree. Carbon dating is not so great sadly, assuming the rate of decay is constant really isn't accurate enough for some people (some data says it is greatly accelerated). This brings into question lots of things (even religious history) to degrees (even though there is nothing written older than the 5,730 year half life though). We could go into genotypes and phenotypes here, but all that is unnecessary. The fact is that things have evolved and we can see evidence in the present and not just way back in the past of this happening. Some of the stuff that occurs way back in time will always be questioned (fossils have been inaccurate before).
P made me laugh lol.
-
I'm an evolutionist, however I'm indifferent to people not believing in it and I will respect the wishes of the electorate if they decided that christian creationism be taught in schools instead of evolution.
So you're OK with christians polluting science with their ignorant myths??
There's a HUGE difference between Evolution and Creationism, they're not even the same thing.
Evoulution is a constantly changing theory based on facts derived from the latest evidence. As new evidence turns up, the theory changes to fit the evidence. It's possible to find a fossil tommorow, that could radically change the theory of evolution as we know it.
Creationism is a mythological belief system. It never changes. As evidence turns up that contradics the belief, the evidence must be rationalized away somehow to keep the belief intact. Creationism is 100% dependent on confirmation bias to exist, which is of course, one of the most common errors of logic.
-
Some of you believe in it, some of you don't. Instead of respecting each other's beliefs, lets have a big fight and see who wins.
:asthing: :cheer: :asthing: :cheer: :asthing: :cheer: :jerry: :headbang:
-
All animals have adapted over time but have not evoled over time.
-
A Lamarkian? ???
-
All animals have adapted over time but have not evoled over time.
Where's your peer reviewed scientific proof for this??
-
Science is unable to answer all matters.
-
Science is unable to answer all matters.
Neither is religion, but only science is honest about it.
-
Science is unable to answer all matters.
Neither is religion, but only science is honest about it.
I don't know that Philosophy or Theology is indeed
so limited. Science specifically prevents itself from
such speculation, taking certain assumptions for
granted (as most theologians will with the existence
of God), and working from them. I see no fundamental
difference, except in the choice of axioms.
-
All animals have adapted over time but have not evoled over time.
Where's your peer reviewed scientific proof for this??
Do I need to pwn you the same way I pwned Peter, bitch?
Don't make me recite the hymn.
-
Some of you believe in it, some of you don't. Instead of respecting each other's beliefs, lets have a big fight and see who wins.
Err, I have a quibble with this (as much as I like the idea of a fight, and despite the fact that I am wading into that fight with all guns blazing!). My gripe is that evolution is not something to be 'believed' in, for two reasons.
First, it is demonstrable fact, and is the only explanation which fits the accumulated evidence of two centuries of research, from the early geologists and naturalists to the modern biochemists and biologists. Which means that asserting evolution is a myth is tantamount to claiming that the Earth is flat or that the moon is a chariot pulled across the sky! It flatly contradicts the evidence, and anything that contradicts the evidence in so flagrant a fashion (i.e., Biblical creationism) does not deserve the respect it is usually given.
And secondly, there is nothing of evolution which can be believed in. Belief implies a subject which cannot be understood on the basis of facts. It is an appropriate expression to use in terms of religious tenets, but it is meaningless in the face of science. I do not 'believe' in evolution, because to assert that I did would deny that evolution is a science, and science is not intended to prove anything! The answers of science are always provisional and depend upon the data continuing to conform to the theoretical framework. If you 'believed' in a framework, you would be unable to see the errors and anomalies which might crop up; which means that no scientist 'believes' in evolution. They accept it because it explains the data. End of story!
God pwns Science, the power of the devil. End.
So... why are you using technology? Get off the fucking Internet before the Devil infects your soul through his corrupting tools of science.
I'm an evolutionist, however I'm indifferent to people not believing in it and I will respect the wishes of the electorate if they decided that christian creationism be taught in schools instead of evolution.
Which means that the facts are irrelevant to you? That it's okay to spread ignorance and superstition, irrespective of the weight of evidence to the contrary? How is this any better than saying, "I think slavery was wrong, but if they want to teach racial theories of African inferiority in schools that's okay with me." Which is, in turn, almost as bad as saying, "I don't agree with slavery, but if someone wants to grab some Senegalese and make them his bitch, that's okay." Meaning, we have to draw the line somewhere, and cut off the demonstrably false and stupid beliefs of our ancestors.
I believe in that something created Us all that was Intelligent and smarter than We are in the end.
Why? That's the question I always have when this comes up, and no-one seems able to answer it. It's almost like it's an emotional need that cannot be communicated if you don't share it. Can you explain it?
Well if I am going to be absolutely insane I would suggest an omnipotent God (can control time obviously) that creates a world with evidence towards evolution, with fossils and everything already there. This is to entrap people and make them think that God doesn't exist, where that God can punish those who found his planted evidence for not believing in him all along. That would make me laugh and really isn't realistic, but fun to think about.
That's a sick idea of fun! >:D It's sorta like describing the Holocaust in terms of theodicy... :P
All animals have adapted over time but have not evoled over time.
Given that we have the same basic instructions, i.e. DNA, how is it, then, that bacteria can be observed evolving, rather than merely 'adapting'?
Besides which, as observed above, there is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. Adaptation, meaning the changes in an organism to make it better suit its environment, only happens through progressive and undirected evolution. The Lamarckian notion of an organism changing to suit its environment has been disproven for most of a century. Changes occur in an organism irrespective of its environment, through random mutations (e.g., transcription errors) in DNA, and then the ones best suited to the environment survive and procreate. Nothing adapts but through evolution.
Science specifically prevents itself from
such speculation, taking certain assumptions for
granted (as most theologians will with the existence
of God), and working from them. I see no fundamental
difference, except in the choice of axioms.
Wait, how?! Science presumes a natural explanation, and that's about the beginning and end of its 'assumptions'; everything else is open to debate. And even that does not fit the context you are describing.
By presuming that something is natural, i.e. understandable, science is setting out its epistemological parameters only. If something does not have a natural explanation, it cannot be disproven, and that is what science is all about in the end. Science is not supposed to provide answers; it is supposed to dispel bad answers, and point toward solutions which better fit the evidence. If someone wants an answer to a fundamental question, science is not an appropriate tool, which means that its assumptions are of an entirely different kind from the false dichotomy you have constructed above. The assumptions of science never presume to describe the fundamental nature of the universe, or even to describe anything. Assumptions of that kind have no place in the scientific world.
[edited to correct a typo. I saw in that last paragraph.]
-
.........Don't make me recite the hymn.
You can recite it all you want, as I ream out your love tunnel sweetiepie. :-*
-
Wait, how?! Science presumes a natural explanation, and that's about the beginning and end of its 'assumptions'; everything else is open to debate. And even that does not fit the context you are describing.
Science presupposes that observations reflect
an underlying reality. It presupposes the principle
of cause and effect, and reproducibility of events.
All these things SEEM fairly likely, to our common
perception, but none are firmly established, nor has
any axiomatization taken place to give a clear founding
of just WHAT faith science is based upon.
(I'm lucky I found this, in such a massive post. I usually skip
such large walls of text. If I don't respond to something, that's
probably the raison).
If someone wants an answer to a fundamental question, science is not an appropriate tool, which means that its assumptions are of an entirely different kind from the false dichotomy you have constructed above. The assumptions of science never presume to describe the fundamental nature of the universe, or even to describe anything. Assumptions of that kind have no place in the scientific world.
Actually, they very much DO presume to describe
the nature. They presuppose that it is understandable
through means which are unprovable. THAT assumption
lays a terrible restriction on what is reasonable and not.
See, the problem is that those who have faith in science
simply dismiss all discussions OUTSIDE the realm of scientific
'knowledge', which absolutely prevents them from even seeing
what their faith is built upon.
-
Science presupposes that observations reflect
an underlying reality.
Not always, and certainly not in some fields! It is not a solid presupposition so much as a working assumption that necessarily guides work. In this way it is a bit like Descartes' notion that some things are simply not able to be doubted if one is to solve any problems.
It presupposes the principle
of cause and effect, and reproducibility of events.
For the former, certainly not in modern physics, which has frequently worked to overturn causality entirely. As for reproducibility, this also breaks down in quantum mechanics, yet you are correct that studies aim for it, as it is impossible to produce a working theory of something if it is a freak anomaly! ;D
All these things SEEM fairly likely, to our common
perception, but none are firmly established, nor has
any axiomatization taken place to give a clear founding
of just WHAT faith science is based upon.
The philosophy of science is filled with arguments like this, though. Frequently what will come out in my expressions are a particular side in that debate, so I freely admit to a certain bias. I'm also a historian of science and not a scientist, so my perspectives and orientation to the field are certainly coloured by a long view, and by a more radical scepticism.
If someone wants an answer to a fundamental question, science is not an appropriate tool, which means that its assumptions are of an entirely different kind from the false dichotomy you have constructed above. The assumptions of science never presume to describe the fundamental nature of the universe, or even to describe anything. Assumptions of that kind have no place in the scientific world.
Actually, they very much DO presume to describe
the nature. They presuppose that it is understandable
through means which are unprovable. THAT assumption
lays a terrible restriction on what is reasonable and not.
See, the problem is that those who have faith in science
simply dismiss all discussions OUTSIDE the realm of scientific
'knowledge', which absolutely prevents them from even seeing
what their faith is built upon.
I can see your point, I think, but I do not agree with the analysis. Science is not about proving, as answers are both contingent and tentative. It is not a simple matter of scientists missing other solutions because their 'faith' blinds them to it. It actually reflects an intentional limiting of the epistemological playing field, which comes from the desire to locate naturalistic answers which can be studied and (as you note) reproduced (even if only in an equation), etc. It is a bias created not to blind a discipline, but to define it; to make it into a particular kind of discipline and a particular kind of tool.
And I don't think that scientists all 'dismiss' discussions outside their institutional limitations, but they do dismiss non-scientific approaches from being called science, just as they generally resist making scientific approaches into dogmatic answers to fundamental questions. Science is a way of thinking only, a tool, and not a comprehensive belief system that restricts one from pursuing certain lines of reasoning (no matter what Richard Dawkins says!). There are, you know, plenty of religious scientists, even, and many who argue that science and religion should not overlap at all (cf. Stephen Jay Gould). But unfortunately, many other scientists do fall into the bad habit of describing their work as reflecting an objective reality which can be understood entirely. This seems to be somewhat an aberration as far as the guiding ethos of both the discipline & world-view goes, at least in my reading of it all.
-
morthaur, I think that we are
more or less in agreement. The
problem is with those who simply
turn to science as the ONLY means
of determining truth. It doesn't even
pretend to be doing so, yet your common
educated person tends to simply dismiss
any other path, without even looking at
the underlying shortcomings which are
present in the scientific view. I see this
as every bit as close-minded as those who
thump their bibles, and say, 'tis so for it's
in HERE - and don't look for the flaws inherent
in that book.
Indeed, most of our common experience tends
to lend a great deal of credence to the scientific
methodology, but what is particularly troublesome
to me is those who try and ask for scientific evidence
of things which can have NO such evidence, by their
very nature.
-
Indeed, most of our common experience tends
to lend a great deal of credence to the scientific
methodology, but what is particularly troublesome
to me is those who try and ask for scientific evidence
of things which can have NO such evidence, by their
very nature.
We agree completely in this. People who ask for proof of G-d's existence or non-existence are missing the point. One can use scientific reason to make a case that a particular idea (e.g., G-d) is likely or unlikely, but science cannot prove anything at all in this area and others like it, and it is unreasonable of some to presume that it can. If you need certainty in life, science is not the place to turn!
-
My question is this We like to explain everything but the more that gets explained then there are more questions to explain in the end.
The more answers the more questions there are.
Even though somethings can not yet be explained do not mean it not true or false in the end.
We may be Living in the Information Age but We still don't have all the answers and will never will either.
Even the unexplainable may one day be explainable.
Maybe one day a Theory of Everthing may yet explain the unexplainable.
-
We may be Living in the Information Age but We still don't have all the answers and will never will either.
Even the unexplainable may one day be explainable.
The contradiction is beautiful.
-
We may be Living in the Information Age but We still don't have all the answers and will never will either.
Even the unexplainable may one day be explainable.
The contradiction is beautiful.
How is this a contradiction?
-
We may be Living in the Information Age but We still don't have all the answers and will never will either.
Even the unexplainable may one day be explainable.
The contradiction is beautiful.
How is this a contradiction?
:laugh:
-
We may be Living in the Information Age but We still don't have all the answers and will never will either.
Even the unexplainable may one day be explainable.
The contradiction is beautiful.
How is this a contradiction?
:laugh:
You never did answer My question.
-
Ah, not used to using standard logic?
Fair enough. The bolded statements, particularly
the use of NEVER and MAY, when used in reference
to the same point, are what is commonly called a contradiction.
Hope that helps.
I think I see why you voted AGAINST the
option which contained all of the points that
you wanted, in the WC entrance requirements
now.
-
Ah, not used to using standard logic?
Fair enough. The bolded statements, particularly
the use of NEVER and MAY, when used in reference
to the same point, are what is commonly called a contradiction.
Hope that helps.
I think I see why you voted AGAINST the
option which contained all of the points that
you wanted, in the WC entrance requirements
now.
So what do You see in My vote?
-
God Pwns.
i'm in the God Pwns camp.
your silly arguments can't sway my conviction!
-
Ah, not used to using standard logic?
Fair enough. The bolded statements, particularly
the use of NEVER and MAY, when used in reference
to the same point, are what is commonly called a contradiction.
Hope that helps.
I think I see why you voted AGAINST the
option which contained all of the points that
you wanted, in the WC entrance requirements
now.
So what do You see in My vote?
Another clear contradiction.
-
My uncle's a creationist. Last time I saw him I got sucked into a two hour discussion on it because I was too polite to be honest. Incidentally, he was also arrested for stockpiling weapons in the desert or something... I think his ultimate plan was to fly over Sudan and drop bibles to try to get the Muslims to convert. Made the papers and everything.
-
Was he stockpiling old bombers?
-
No, I think tracer bullets, which are illegal in California. Here's an old article about it: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13946 . Truthfully I don't know what was going on with the bible thing, which was supposedly the real reason they kept him in jail so long. I think they had a boat that they were trying to disassemble and turn into a plane. Whatever it was, it clearly wasn't going to happen.
-
Wow. Not sure that jail is the right
solution to someone that cracked.
-
God Pwns.
i'm in the God Pwns camp.
your silly arguments can't sway my conviction!
Ignoring for the moment that my only partial comprehension of the word 'pwns' makes this statement difficult, I am wondering what it is that is threatened here. How can any argument for or against evolution be relevant to faith in the power of G-d? The transcendent can be experienced in countless ways, and no arguments for evolutionism have anything whatever to do with faith in G-d and her ultimate existence, goodness, etc. Real faith should be strong enough to tolerate new facts; after all, if G-d created the world, those facts are hers as well.
On the other hand, if faith in G-d is so fragile as to be tied completely to ancient writings, to the extent that a belief in her forces the faithful to pluck out their eyes and practically lobotomize themselves, well... I'd say that kind of faith needs to die. And eventually, when we (as a society and a world) grow tired of the blind and dumb leading us to oblivion, mayhap we can get all of those so-called 'faithful' to pack up and move to a remote island where they can practice their primitive rituals without harming the innocent. :green:
-
My uncle's a creationist. Last time I saw him I got sucked into a two hour discussion on it because I was too polite to be honest. Incidentally, he was also arrested for stockpiling weapons in the desert or something... I think his ultimate plan was to fly over Sudan and drop bibles to try to get the Muslims to convert. Made the papers and everything.
My uncle pays for bibles to be translated into Arabic and sent to the Muslim hoards, as well as donates to general missionary work. He gives away tens of thousands of pounds each year. Also, his car died recently and he needed a new one, so he asked God what to do, and God told him which car to get, in the literal "THAT CAR OVER THERE" sense. Fortunately it wasn't an SUV; just some second hand thing he got for £7,000.
-
Aliens Pwn Wit God! Deal Wid It!!!
-
My uncle's a creationist. Last time I saw him I got sucked into a two hour discussion on it because I was too polite to be honest. Incidentally, he was also arrested for stockpiling weapons in the desert or something... I think his ultimate plan was to fly over Sudan and drop bibles to try to get the Muslims to convert. Made the papers and everything.
My uncle pays for bibles to be translated into Arabic and sent to the Muslim hoards, as well as donates to general missionary work. He gives away tens of thousands of pounds each year. Also, his car died recently and he needed a new one, so he asked God what to do, and God told him which car to get, in the literal "THAT CAR OVER THERE" sense. Fortunately it wasn't an SUV; just some second hand thing he got for £7,000.
So what make and model does God prefer just in case I get in an accident I want him to look kindly on me ::)
-
My uncle's a creationist. Last time I saw him I got sucked into a two hour discussion on it because I was too polite to be honest. Incidentally, he was also arrested for stockpiling weapons in the desert or something... I think his ultimate plan was to fly over Sudan and drop bibles to try to get the Muslims to convert. Made the papers and everything.
My uncle pays for bibles to be translated into Arabic and sent to the Muslim hoards, as well as donates to general missionary work. He gives away tens of thousands of pounds each year. Also, his car died recently and he needed a new one, so he asked God what to do, and God told him which car to get, in the literal "THAT CAR OVER THERE" sense. Fortunately it wasn't an SUV; just some second hand thing he got for £7,000.
So what make and model does God prefer just in case I get in an accident I want him to look kindly on me ::)
I didn't pay that much attention, but it'll be some pretty ordinary, utilitarian car, judging by my uncle's tastes.
-
What started the moment of The Big Bang?
We can not go back to the very moment of The Big Bang when it started. We can only go back just before The Big Bang started.
What started the moment of Life on Earth?
Can We yet start that moment of Life when it began on Earth?
Has science yet started Life, or created Life, or a new species of Life?
Science can only enhance existing Life.
-
What started the moment of The Big Bang?
We can not go back to the very moment of The Big Bang when it started. We can only go back just before The Big Bang started.
What started the moment of Life on Earth?
Can We yet start that moment of Life when it began on Earth?
Has science yet started Life, or created Life, or a new species of Life?
Science can only enhance existing Life.
Just like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie pop the world my never know :green:
No one said you don't have to have faith in science just not as much as you do with religion
-
My uncle's a creationist. Last time I saw him I got sucked into a two hour discussion on it because I was too polite to be honest. Incidentally, he was also arrested for stockpiling weapons in the desert or something... I think his ultimate plan was to fly over Sudan and drop bibles to try to get the Muslims to convert. Made the papers and everything.
My uncle pays for bibles to be translated into Arabic and sent to the Muslim hoards, as well as donates to general missionary work. He gives away tens of thousands of pounds each year. Also, his car died recently and he needed a new one, so he asked God what to do, and God told him which car to get, in the literal "THAT CAR OVER THERE" sense. Fortunately it wasn't an SUV; just some second hand thing he got for £7,000.
So what make and model does God prefer just in case I get in an accident I want him to look kindly on me ::)
I didn't pay that much attention, but it'll be some pretty ordinary, utilitarian car, judging by my uncle's tastes.
I guess God has different tastes around here the preachers all drive luxury cars :o
-
What started the moment of The Big Bang?
We can not go back to the very moment of The Big Bang when it started. We can only go back just before The Big Bang started.
What started the moment of Life on Earth?
Can We yet start that moment of Life when it began on Earth?
Has science yet started Life, or created Life, or a new species of Life?
Science can only enhance existing Life.
Just like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie pop the world my never know :green:
No one said you don't have to have faith in science just not as much as you do with religion
It was meant to be taken seriously.
-
What started the moment of The Big Bang?
We can not go back to the very moment of The Big Bang when it started. We can only go back just before The Big Bang started.
What started the moment of Life on Earth?
Can We yet start that moment of Life when it began on Earth?
Has science yet started Life, or created Life, or a new species of Life?
Science can only enhance existing Life.
Just like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie pop the world my never know :green:
No one said you don't have to have faith in science just not as much as you do with religion
It was meant to be taken seriously.
It was there are just some things I feel will never be adequately explained and will always live in that world of faith. The further scientists push there will always be the unknown ahead of them. All you have to do is decide where to place your faith I go with science.
-
What started the moment of The Big Bang?
We can not go back to the very moment of The Big Bang when it started. We can only go back just before The Big Bang started.
What started the moment of Life on Earth?
Can We yet start that moment of Life when it began on Earth?
Has science yet started Life, or created Life, or a new species of Life?
Science can only enhance existing Life.
Just like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie pop the world my never know :green:
No one said you don't have to have faith in science just not as much as you do with religion
It was meant to be taken seriously.
It was there are just some things I feel will never be adequately explained and will always live in that world of faith. The further scientists push there will always be the unknown ahead of them. All you have to do is decide where to place your faith I go with science.
To Me it not just about Religion or Faith nor about just Science either. It is a combination of both.
-
What started the moment of The Big Bang?
We can not go back to the very moment of The Big Bang when it started. We can only go back just before The Big Bang started.
What started the moment of Life on Earth?
Can We yet start that moment of Life when it began on Earth?
Has science yet started Life, or created Life, or a new species of Life?
Science can only enhance existing Life.
Just like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie pop the world my never know :green:
No one said you don't have to have faith in science just not as much as you do with religion
It was meant to be taken seriously.
It was there are just some things I feel will never be adequately explained and will always live in that world of faith. The further scientists push there will always be the unknown ahead of them. All you have to do is decide where to place your faith I go with science.
To Me it not just about Religion or Faith nor about just Science either. It is a combination of both.
I respect that. I have ad too many problems with Religion in my life to put much faith into it and also have a degree in science so that's where I go
-
As difficult as it is to have faith in something that you can't perceive with any of your senses, isn't it harder to have faith in the works of humanity? You either trust that science is right or you try to disprove it, faith doesn't work that way really. I don't think you can really attach faith to science as you can actually see science work with your own senses. It is something you can actually study as it is real, like how dropping a bowling ball on your foot is real (gravity works!). The reason why people have faith in a god is because you must have faith to believe it exists, you have no other evidence than a book written by.... humans that are supposedly influenced by god. I don't fucking trust humans to keep the word of god as it was originally "spoken", and I really don't trust them to be perfect scientifically either.
-
As difficult as it is to have faith in something that you can't perceive with any of your senses, isn't it harder to have faith in the works of humanity? You either trust that science is right or you try to disprove it, faith doesn't work that way really. I don't think you can really attach faith to science as you can actually see science work with your own senses. It is something you can actually study as it is real, like how dropping a bowling ball on your foot is real (gravity works!). The reason why people have faith in a god is because you must have faith to believe it exists, you have no other evidence than a book written by.... humans that are supposedly influenced by god. I don't fucking trust humans to keep the word of god as it was originally "spoken", and I really don't trust them to be perfect scientifically either.
Some of Our Greatest Scientists of the Past where Christians. Where would We be in science today without Them?
Some of the Greatest Mathematicians of the the Past where Muslims. Where would We be in mathematics today without Them?
-
They would still exist, just they would have no religion. I doubt their religion had anything to do with why they were skilled at math or science. Just because they had no belief in god, doesn't mean they wouldn't make the same achievements in their chosen fields.
-
They would still exist, just they would have no religion. I doubt their religion had anything to do with why they were skilled at math or science. Just because they had no belief in god, doesn't mean they wouldn't make the same achievements in their chosen fields.
But science and mathematics where started in a time religion. Some where persecuted for what they believed in. It took these persons to further Our Science and Mathematics.
-
Science advanced in spite of religion. The religions of the world initially tried to hold science back to some extent. Islam supposedly supports the advancement of science lol. Right now Christians are trying to hold back science. They did the same thing during the "Dark Ages", but were much more effective obviously due to most people being incapable of reading.
Mathematics advancing has nothing to do with religion though, only if you count the need to do higher maths to work problems that relate to sciences.
-
Science advanced in spite of religion. The religions of the world initially tried to hold science back to some extent. Islam supposedly supports the advancement of science lol. Right now Christians are trying to hold back science. They did the same thing during the "Dark Ages", but were much more effective obviously due to most people being incapable of reading.
Mathematics advancing has nothing to do with religion though, only if you count the need to do higher maths to work problems that relate to sciences.
Of course it did. Of course they did. But the advancements We have can not yet explain All yet can We. Science has not really tried to explain Themselves (scientists) enough so the ordinary person can understand the science well enough. We are to take no matter what as the only truth the only correct way of Understanding Our World that We live in.
Is Science or Scientists that High and Almighty?
I truly don't care about the religious aspects. I was trying to get somebody to answer My questions I have asked only. Nobody has not answered them either. I was not trying to bring Religion in to it You have made Me bring it in the end.What started the moment of The Big Bang?
We can not go back to the very moment of The Big Bang when it started. We can only go back just before The Big Bang started.
What started the moment of Life on Earth?
Can We yet start that moment of Life when it began on Earth?
Has science yet started Life, or created Life, or a new species of Life?
Science can only enhance existing Life.
So when will somebody try to explain these questions?
-
What started the moment of The Big Bang?
We can not go back to the very moment of The Big Bang when it started. We can only go back just before The Big Bang started.
You've answered your own question here. With our current scientific understanding, it's impossible for us to determine what conditions existed in the very first moment of the Big Bang. This is a well-defined limitation, and invoking a deity and making up some fairytale about it does nothing to enhance our understanding; doing so would simply be us deluding ourselves.
What started the moment of Life on Earth?
The dominant theories of abiogenesis postulate that simple self-replicating chemical systems emerged and from there evolved into life as we know it.
Can We yet start that moment of Life when it began on Earth?
We do not know precisely how life started on Earth. There are numerous possible self-replicating systems which could have been the precursor to modern life, and there is no known surviving evidence that could tell us which one it was, and very little likelihood of such evidence being found.
Has science yet started Life, or created Life, or a new species of Life?
Yes, speciation events have been achieved in laboratory conditions, as well as being observed in nature. Abiogenesis has not yet been achieved, however research is ongoing in that area and there are no known fundamental obstacles to the artificial creation of life.
-
Thanks Peter. :plus:
-
Some of Our Greatest Scientists of the Past where Christians. Where would We be in science today without Them?
Some of the Greatest Mathematicians of the the Past where Muslims. Where would We be in mathematics today without Them?
Probably just where we are. The difference between revealed religion on the one hand, and science & mathematics on the other, is that the latter would inevitably be discovered by someone else; they are not dependent on the "lone genius", as they reflect natural effects and laws. Calculus, to state a well-known example, was developed by two thinkers, totally independently of one another, at almost the same time (Newton and Leibniz).
Science has not really tried to explain Themselves (scientists) enough so the ordinary person can understand the science well enough. We are to take no matter what as the only truth the only correct way of Understanding Our World that We live in.
Of course they have tried to explain themselves! You haven't ever stepped into the science section at your local bookseller and seen the rows and rows of books by science popularizers? You've never heard of folks like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Matt Ridley, Brian Greene, Steven Pinker, et ceteras ad nauseam?
I truly don't care about the religious aspects. I was trying to get somebody to answer My questions I have asked only. Nobody has not answered them either. I was not trying to bring Religion in to it You have made Me bring it in the end.What started the moment of The Big Bang?
We can not go back to the very moment of The Big Bang when it started. We can only go back just before The Big Bang started.
What started the moment of Life on Earth?
Can We yet start that moment of Life when it began on Earth?
Has science yet started Life, or created Life, or a new species of Life?
Science can only enhance existing Life.
So when will somebody try to explain these questions?
Okay, Peter covered a lot of this, so I'll just add a few details and links.
Has science yet started Life, or created Life, or a new species of Life?
See the article below for the middle question. Science has started life, in the sense of getting the chemical bonds to occur spontaneously, which is all that is really required in broad terms. Almost everything about the subsequent development of such primitive chemical 'lifeforms' can be explained with current evolutionary theories (frameworks). As for speciation, this occurs on a routine basis in research on more primitive organisms, from bacteria to insects, since these critters have a lifespan brief enough to observe in controlled experiments.
excerpt:
Countdown to a synthetic lifeform (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19526114.000-countdown-to-a-synthetic-lifeform.html)
11 July 2007
Synthetic life could be just around the corner - depending on what you mean by "synthetic".
Last week, genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that his team has passed an important milestone in its efforts to create a bacterial cell whose genome is entirely synthetic - constructed chemically from the building blocks of DNA. Venter claims this goal could be achieved within months.
But while Venter's synthetic genome will be housed within an existing bacterial cell, other scientists are aiming for the even more ambitious target of building an entire living cell from the basic chemical ingredients. Giovanni Murtas of the Enrico Fermi Centre at the University of Rome 3, Italy, reported last week at the Synthetic Biology 3.0 meeting in Zurich, Switzerland, that his team had taken a step toward this goal by successfully synthesising proteins in cell-like compartments.
According to George Church at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who has devised a complete blueprint for a synthetic cell, an investment of around $10 million would be enough to turn the "bottom-up" dream into reality. "Our approach doesn't require any super new technology," he says.
Whichever definition of synthetic life you adopt, it seems now to be a question of when rather than if. "We are at the doorstep of being able to create life," says Steen Rasmussen, a physicist trying to create artificial living systems at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
{follow link above for full article}
What started the moment of The Big Bang?
There is a lot of work done on this topic, but the following is a great place to start: Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Origin-Universe-P-S/dp/0007162219/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-2001968-6851946?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191002845&sr=1-1), by Simon Singh. It is a very recent book by a science popularizer that you should be able to find in any Barnes & Noble or Borders (or what-have-you). It brings together the current state of our knowledge of that period, as well as the evidence to support those views.
You might also want to look at Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Fourteen-Billion-Cosmic-Evolution/dp/0393327582/ref=ed_oe_p/104-2001968-6851946?ie=UTF8&qid=1191002928&sr=1-1), by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith, which touches on both of your questions.
-
Morthaur:
A question.
Why is the universe expanding faster today as ever before?
-
cuz the ascension is coming. :green:
-
cuz the ascension is coming. :green:
You are funny. :green:
-
it is true. :green:
-
I can't wait for the bigger bang!
-
I can't wait for the bigger bang!
The one that destroyls everything?
-
I can't wait for the bigger bang!
The one that destroyls everything?
Indeed. From Cosmic Encounter's Moons expansion.
-
I can't wait for the bigger bang!
The one that destroyls everything?
That would be something to see in the end.
-
No other time.
-
the moon is actually an alien construction.
-
the moon is actually an alien construction.
Who was awarded the contract??
-
they're a bit fuzzy on the details.
-
they're a bit fuzzy on the details.
That's because they are undocumented aliens :P
-
And don't shave.
-
The only good thing that ever came from kOsmo
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
:laugh: :pwned: :plus:
-
:laugh: :pwned: :plus:
It pwns itself with that strawman.
-
nuh uh.
-
This guy has changed my whole view on the matter ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-euh8x6AFOs
-
It pwns itself with that strawman.
That's what liberals say when they get pwned... that and this:
(http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/4782/sealxe2.gif)