Spirituality
18 Aug 11
19 Aug 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadContradicts previous statements?????? Inconsistent?????
Which contradicts some of your previous statements. You are inconsistent.
In reality, you accept science when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't. This has nothing to do with the scientists in question, but rather whether or not you personally like the results.
Nothing to do with the scientist in question?????? It must please me?????
Explain please and give references. Maybe this is a joke. Ha! Ha!
19 Aug 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf what you say is true. How can scientist get out of this predicament?
Scientists, or people following the basics of scientific method before it
had been codified and the name coined, have been exploring the universe
and trying to explain it long before most of them were atheists.
It was in fact due to what these (largely Christian) theistic scientists discovered
that most today are now non-religious.
Plus whethe ...[text shortened]... d.
Simply a discussion of the scientific legitimacy of evolution by natural selection.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat predicament?
If what you say is true. How can scientist get out of this predicament?
(not being funny, I wasn't aware I was putting scientists into a predicament)
EDIT:
After re-reading my post I can't find any predicament for scientist's in it.
I was simply pointing out that any explanation that involves the supernatural is
not in fact an explanation at all.
You have simply moved the unknown from the thing you were trying to explain
to the supernatural entity (for which there is currently no evidence).
People have been explaining all sorts of things throughout history via supernatural
means. Things like the day night cycle, lightning, the weather, the motions of the
planets in the solar system.
None of these supernatural explanations ever got them anywhere, each one was
a roadblock to further knowledge.
Take the motions of the planets; It was once religious dogma that the planets and
the sun all revolved around the earth because we were special and had been placed
at the centre of gods creation and thus everything had to orbit around us.
This was wrong, and while it was heresy to contradict it science, and human understanding
could not move past this mistake and expand our knowledge.
It was the scientific method and those who followed it that corrected this mistake, not
any religious insight, in fact it was against the express wishes and opinion of the church of
the day.
have a look at this excellent description of scientific scepticism and why it is so useful and
successful.
http://sd4kids.skepdic.com/scientificskepticism.html
And how about my challenge?
Are you prepared to actually examine the evidence and logic behind the theory
you have been dismissing for so long?
19 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeI've explained to Ronald in baby steps how evolution works, he accepted everything i said yet still says life didn't evolve.
What predicament?
(not being funny, I wasn't aware I was putting scientists into a predicament)
[/i]
EDIT:
After re-reading my post I can't find any predicament for scientist's in it.
I was simply pointing out that any explanation that involves the supernatural is
not in fact an explanation at all.
You have simply moved the unknown from t ...[text shortened]... y examine the evidence and logic behind the theory
you have been dismissing for so long?
He's just confused.
19 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeIn the past it has always turned out that the Holy Bible was right.
What predicament?
(not being funny, I wasn't aware I was putting scientists into a predicament)
[i]
EDIT:
After re-reading my post I can't find any predicament for scientist's in it.
I was simply pointing out that any explanation that involves the supernatural is
not in fact an explanation at all.
You have simply moved the unknown from the t ...[text shortened]... ually examine the evidence and logic behind the theory
you have been dismissing for so long?
So I'm sticking with the tried and true.
P.S. The predicament i was referring to is in your statement below:
"When we want to explain something we have to do it in terms of other things
we already understand. Otherwise if you explain something in terms of something
we don't understand you then have to explain the new thing you don't understand
that supposedly explains the first thing you don't understand, which in reality means
you haven't got any closer to an actual explanation of how or why this thing you are
trying to explain worked/happened."
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHinds
In the past it has always turned out that the Holy Bible was right.
So I'm sticking with the tried and true.
P.S. The predicament i was referring to is in your statement below:
"When we want to explain something we have to do it in terms of other things
we already understand. Otherwise if you explain something in terms of something
we don't under ...[text shortened]... actual explanation of how or why this thing you are
trying to explain worked/happened."
"In the past it has always turned out that the Holy Bible was right.
So I'm sticking with the tried and true."
I am sorry but you can't possibly justify this.
The bible isn't even self consistent.
It also justifies;
Murder,
Incest,
Rape,
Genocide,
Homophobia,
Racism,
plus is totally inconsistent and logically impossible.
see this for starters.
You're not sticking with tried and true, you're sticking with tried and failed.
BTW here is a relevant speech given by the guy who created the above.
and his homepage.
http://thethinkingatheist.com/home
Given he is in a much better position to explain what is wrong with the bible than
I am.
There is no predicament for scientists in the section you refer to.
I am still at a loss to see what predicament you think there is so please explain
what problem you think you see so I don't put words in your mouth or try to
guess what you think the problem is.
19 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you are generalizing and demonizing the entire branch of science known as evolution theory. Ok.
You really should have taken your smart pill today. Obviously,
"they" are evolutionist -- see the Question.
What about the 'lie'? You didn't answer that.
Just out of curiosity, do you think it is the work of the devil to collect fossils? Just to collect fossils and to get a picture of what went before, disregarding evolution.