science is blind to many things
that could very well be true, but have to be taken on faith, because we
cannot prove them.
This is true, KJ. But the following is also true and also infinitely more common:
"Science is blind to many things that are false, but can be taken on faith, because we cannot prove them."
Given these truths. Isn't it better to use the tried-n-true method of science than to simply make an untestable claim?
Originally posted by KellyJayVery interesting post Kelly!
Creation will never be accepted by science, it does not mean it isn't
true only that will never be accepted by people of science using their
methods. Having said that, the truth about the beginning may never
be found in science either, because science is blind to many things
that could very well be true, but have to be taken on faith, because we
canno ...[text shortened]... king the deck to get out
something that they want to see, a matter of belief or faith.
Kelly
>if your complaint about creation is that it isn't science, my question to you is, so what?
My main objective against the Creation theory is that it isn't scientific, and some people are trying to make it appear that it is. By all means teach about it in religious schools but keep it out of the science department.
Concerning the eye, blood clotting, and all the other objections, please look at http://www.talkorigins.org for answers.
Originally posted by telerionIt's amazing that anyone would compare theories on gravity to the speculation on eye evolution. Tell me, how do you keep a straight face when you do that. Must be quite the poker player! 🙂
<Coletti's philosophy on>
Gravity is a religion which serves the god, Science.
Gravity has never been directly observed. We only see "the effects of gravity" on objects. QM, Classical Mechanics, and Gen. Relativity will never be reconciled because they are not science!
Some say String Theory unites QM, CR, and GR, but String Theory is not sc ...[text shortened]... M, CM, and GR do not really upset Coletti's worldview to much. Ah, the cognitive dissonance.
Unlike the evolution of the eye, the effects of gravity have been measures in many ways. We have hard data on gravity. We have not determined how it works, so there are many theories on it, but these are real scientific theories that are testable. And not one scientist working on theories of gravity would claim that their theories were facts or true.
The evolution of the eye is impossible to test - therefore it is unscientific. Speculation is still bad science, even if you label it evolution.
Originally posted by KellyJayThe "so what" stems from the hoards of folks who labor to have Creationism taught as science in schools. They harm our schools.
Creation will never be accepted by science, it does not mean it isn't
true only that will never be accepted by people of science using their
methods. Having said that, the truth about the beginning may never
be found in science either, because science is blind to many things
that could very well be true, but have to be taken on faith, because we
canno ...[text shortened]... r, if your
complaint about creation is that it isn't science, my question to
you is, so what?
No one disputes that notions of Creation are religious notions; creationism claims to be science, although it clearly is not.
I always thought engineers were just a few rungs below economists in terms of mathematical knowledge. Talk about an upward biased estimator!
The evidences for QM, for CM, and for GR are all extensive. Unfortunately, we have not been able to unify them. String theory is an attempt, but much remains to be tested and so the jury is still out on it. Apparently physicists are getting close though. Nevertheless, there are an enormous number of things that need to be explained. Still you bestow upon it the prestigious Colletti's Badge of Science.
Let's be honest. Your only reason for denying evolution is because of your unfounded religious bias. It goes against your a priori, maternally-nurtured belief in a compiled set of human writings. If gravity threatened this myth, you would come up with all sorts of hair-brained objections to it too. You make tremendous allowances for the "gaps" in our knowledge of gravity, but seize upon each unanswered question in biology as if it were a death sentence.
Col, I used to believe fervently too. Finally, I opened up and allowed myself to really consider the data. The freedom you experience when you are honest with yourself is amazing. I hope you get that chance someday. Unlike with xtianity, your time is running out.
Originally posted by scipio7777777what else is there to say?
creationism a viable theory nothing more nothing less
the same as the theory of evolution
I am an uber conservative. I play chess. I read books (sci fi and history) I play airsoft and paintball. I LIKE TO KILL SMALL WOODLAND CREATURES!!!!!!!!!!!! i go hunting for squirles coons groundhogs woodchucks etc etc
Originally posted by telerionThank you for your words of encouragement. And yes, main reason for denying evolution is because of it's unfounded religious bias.
I always thought engineers were just a few rungs below economists in terms of mathematical knowledge. Talk about an upward biased estimator!
The evidences for QM, for CM, and for GR are all extensive. Unfortunately, we have not been able to unify them. String theory is an attempt, but much remains to be tested and so the jury is still out on it. Appa ...[text shortened]... s amazing. I hope you get that chance someday. Unlike with xtianity, your time is running out.
I just don't have the faith in science and popular opinion that many have. I like people like Einstein who honestly admitted: "We know nothing about it at all."
Originally posted by ColettiThat's funny. Isn't it precisely religion that tries to explain everything? And one of the main reasons for being religious, is that religion gives an all out explanation to the world.
Thank you for your words of encouragement. And yes, main reason for denying evolution is because of it's unfounded religious bias.
I just don't have the faith in science and popular opinion that many have. I like people like Einstein who honestly admitted: "We know nothing about it at all."
Whereas science does the absolute opposite: states that what we don't know, we shouldn't try to make conclusions about.
Actually in a sense your argument is pro science.
I think you are all being too simplistic. I'm not convinced that the universe operates on an either/or, true/false, something/nothing basis. Either believe in evolution or believe in God, but not both. Either believe in science or believe in religion, but not both. Nonsense. What exists, exists. What exists for one man may not exist for all men, but that does not negate its existence.
Originally posted by DelmerI have to disagree.
I think you are all being too simplistic. I'm not convinced that the universe operates on an either/or, true/false, something/nothing basis. Either believe in evolution or believe in God, but not both. Either believe in science or believe i ...[text shortened]... ay not exist for all men, but that does not negate its existence.
Certainly religion and science are at odds, but God is not religion.
One certainly can believe in evolution and still believe in God.
Something started the whole shebang (that's a technical term for universe) going.
Certainly evolution precludes the existence of any guiding influence after the big bang, as it fits into the second law of thermodynamics (which einstein once referred to as the only true law of nature).
The big bang, however, does not fit into any model we can currently create.
Only immediately (milliseconds) AFTER the big bang can thermodynamics be seen to take hold of the universe and mould it in a mathematically explainable way.
So, I ask you, what caused the big bang to occur in such a way that the creation of atoms, stars, galaxies, life and digital watches could be the only possible outcome?
Originally posted by martin williamsI think you are actually agreeing with me, more or less. Perhaps I was not clear. My point is that most of the posts in a string like this present views in an either/or format, either A or B. Seems like a false choice to me. One need not choose between A & B. One is free to believe both A & B or neither A nor B.
I have to disagree.
Certainly religion and science are at odds, but God is not religion.
One certainly can believe in evolution and still believe in God.
Something started the whole shebang (that's a technical term for universe) going.
Certainly evolution precludes the existence of any guiding influence after the big bang, as it fits into the se ...[text shortened]... r the creation of atoms, stars, galaxies and digital watches could be the only possible outcome?
Originally posted by DelmerI did indeed misunderstand.
I think you are actually agreeing with me, more or less. Perhaps I was not clear. My point is that most of the posts in a string like this present views in an either/or format, either A or B. Seems like a false choice to me. One need not choose between A & B. One is free to believe both A & B or neither A nor B.
I thought you were advocating the A/B scenario.
My apologies.
Originally posted by martin williamsI think we are the cells of the great being. All living creatures form the body and the functions of the whole great soul. We are the minutate part of the great one. Therefore our evolution is predestined, controlled by the greater being of which we are a tiny part.
I did indeed misunderstand.
I thought you were advocating the A/B scenario.
My apologies.