25 Nov 04
Originally posted by StarValleyWyMike, of all the posts I think yours is one most consistent with the spirit of inquiry-in science, philosophy or anything else.........
Very interesting premise.
Let's see. I really can't see the harm of allowing "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" and "Evolution" from being taught. That is the nature of science. Over time, only the reproducible, verifiable and strongest arguments will gain power.
It may take a thousand years. But -- SO?
Where is it said that we nee ...[text shortened]... be worshiped. But used. If an idea produces nothing usable, let it die a natural death.
Mike
25 Nov 04
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo much of what people believe rests on the consistent results of
Kelly, this point of view naturally leads to people believing and doing whatever they want no matter what the evidence is. Science simply proposes models that explain observations. No, it's never proved - but can you prove that yo ...[text shortened]... emories and observations really well, so you tend to believe them.
the dating methods, but it isn't that these things mean what we think
only that we are getting consistent results. So if it is possible that
these are completely wrong than the truth of the matter is that so
much of what has been projected here in support of so many
theories is nothing but bunk. If we don't have the data to support
rates over millions or billions of years than we really don't know
that these rates are consistent, if we don't have something known
to be millions or billion of years old for comparison than we don't
know if we are getting dates right or not. We can only say that
according to this method or that one, the earth is "X" years old.
Which is completely different than saying that the earth is "X" years
old and that is a fact. Stating the earth is millions or billions of
years old isn’t being factual, it is stating a belief as a fact.
Kelly
25 Nov 04
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you attempting to say that scientists believe in science as a religion? Well I suppose that it depends on:
So much of what people believe rests on the consistent results of
the dating methods, but it isn't that these things mean what we think
only that we are getting consistent results. So if it is possible that
these are completely wrong than the truth of the matter is that so
much of what has been projected here in support of so many
theories is nothing ...[text shortened]... llions or billions of
years old isn’t being factual, it is stating a belief as a fact.
Kelly
a) Your definition of religion
b)Your definition of belief
c)Whether you consider the amount of actual irrefuteable fact available (on all sorts of subjects, the age of the earth aside for the moment) as important.
There is NO evidence for the existance of a god(s), which is the fundamental basis for the religion. In science there are facts, and they tie together to form the building blocks of understanding. 2+2=4 is a fact (advanced mathematicians be quiet for the moment 😛 ), and many hundreds more facts lead to the toolbox of experimentation. The results lead to hypotheses and theories which lead to further experiments, hypotheses and theories. As each yields it's results it can correct, refute or advance previous experiments, hypotheses and theories. This process is continual and readjusts our understandings. When something cannot be proved incorrect it begins to take the mantle of fact, this is not infallible, but open to reclarification and occasionally changes are made which then influence the future work on ideas they dealt with. It is an ongoing attempt to justify, clarify and empirically present the structure of the universe as factual and coherrent.
Religion does not entertain any such possibilities. It claims to be correct from the start. Despite many hundreds of religions, sub-branches and denominations each believing it is right, but none are concerned with why or how. It is very easy for a worshipper to say all and every attempts at contradicting his religion are lies placed or suggested by Satan. Science at least considers the possibilities and tries to provide a factual basis for what is to be believed .
You talk to me of belief? Belief is what takes the place of any attempt at proof, it should not be applied to science.
25 Nov 04
Originally posted by StarrmanYou are being quite selective if you are asserting there is no evidence
Are you attempting to say that scientists believe in science as a religion? Well I suppose that it depends on:
a) Your definition of religion
b)Your definition of belief
c)Whether you consider the amount of actual irrefuteable fact available (on all sorts of subjects, the age of the earth aside for the moment) as important.
There is NO evidence f ...[text shortened]... f? Belief is what takes the place of any attempt at proof, it should not be applied to science.
for the existence of God. I also believe that if you’re limiting our
acceptance for God to science, it is like putting on blinders. Much like
the point I brought up with prn with the Bullwinkle's lost coin. Where
Bullwinkle was looking for a lost coin in the light rafters. When asked if
he lost his coin there he said no, but because the lighting was better
there, that was where he was going to look. Science is quite limited to
the material world and beyond that imagination of scientist. So if there
are events or actions that cannot be explained and yet they fly in face
of what science does tell us as the way the universe behaves, than I’d
say we may have stumbled upon something that could be evidence for
God. Yet, because of science limitations it would automatically have
to reject the idea, because it is beyond the realm of science.
Kelly
26 Nov 04
So if there
are events or actions that cannot be explained and yet they fly in face
of what science does tell us as the way the universe behaves, than I’d
say we may have stumbled upon something that could be evidence for God
It could be. It could also be that the model that science is suggesting is wrong, and we simply need a new model.
What sort of evidence are you referring to? I don't think I've seen anything that clearly flew in the face of science.