Right Wing Christian Fascist Nut job slams Left Wing Sociali

Home :: Search :: Memberlist :: Privacy Policy :: Donate!

Right Wing Christian Fascist Nut job slams Left Wing Sociali

Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:18 am Post subject:

Quote:

Thank you for repeatedly proving how little you understand science. You're an idiot if you think that science can't possibly prove the origin of life. You're even more of an idiot if you take that belief and then say "welp, that must mean we should turn to a supreme being." Science has a lot of key theories based on quite a bit of evidence of where life came from, and how the universe began. This is in direct opposition to things based on no evidence at all, like God.

admittedly, I am an idiot when it comes to science. But I do know that there is no consensus in scientific circles about the origin of life or our universe. There are several theories out there....but noone really knows.

Quote:

But we aren't talking about atheism versus religion, we're talking about science versus religion. If you can provide even the slightest shred of scientific evidence that there is a god, you can begin making your case scientifically. You can't of course and that topic is therefore not scientific and won't be studied as science.

There is no scientific proof for the origin of life either. Scientists just don't know how it happened. If you know different, please let us all know. Smile

Quote:

No, ID is asking whether certain structures could have been the result of creation by a being.

Intelligent design is the idea that some structures could not have been formed by random unguided forces. Who this being is or was is not a matter for science.

Quote:

Intelligent Design doesn't mean "random occurrence", it means planned/designed occurrence, meaning a god or deity, which is religious.

not necessarily. maybe there is another planet or solar system out there that supports life and somehow life came from that planet to ours. ??

and talking about a god or a deity is not necessarily religious. If your worldview includes a belief in a deity, then it is perfectly scientific to assume that the physical world is going to reflect this deity's presence or work in some way.
If your worldview is atheistic, then naturally any idea of a deity is excluded a priori.

Quote:

So we should teach our children anything that someone makes up and wants taught in their school? Great idea to turn our children into intellectual mush. Thank goodness you aren't a school administrator.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

Quote:

Absolutely not. The fundamental issue here is between "teaching our children what's based on logic and reason, thus science" and "is our children learning". You have no right to take away a child's education simply because you're uneducated in certain aspects of life.

well this is the essence of what a liberal society would look like. the "educated" would tell the uneducated how they should live their life, what they should teach their children, etc. etc. In liberal society, there are two groups; the anointed and everyone else. It is the opposite of what classical liberalism used to stand for.

Quote:

Neither. Since they actually know what the hell they're talking about, experts should mandate the curriculum: scientists, mathematicians, biologists, physicists, linguists, etc.

people take notice....this is liberalism. the experts will mandate what your children learn. Parents are uneducated bimbos. the experts know all things.

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:36 am Post subject:

Quote:

You're right, but just because no one knows doesn't mean you can say that science can never prove it (various theories have varying degrees of evidence to support their theory).

Quote:

There is no scientific proof for the origin of life either. Scientists just don't know how it happened. If you know different, please let us all know. Smile

No, but there is scientific EVIDENCE behind scientific theories about the origin of life. I think you're missing my point entirely: EVIDENCE vs. STORY.

Quote:

Who this being is or was is not a matter for science.

Exactly. It's religion, not science. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Quote:

not necessarily. maybe there is another planet or solar system out there that supports life and somehow life came from that planet to ours. ??

Even if that were something ID covered, which it doesn't, there is still absolutely no evidence to support that theory and provides absolutely no assertion to where THAT life came from, therefore it's just another story based on no evidence at all.

Quote:

and talking about a god or a deity is not necessarily religious. If your worldview includes a belief in a deity, then it is perfectly scientific to assume that the physical world is going to reflect this deity's presence or work in some way.

Science is the world of using EVIDENCE guided by logic to come to conclusions. Gods and deities are not supported by ANY evidence, and are therefore not science. They are religion:

Quote:

religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion.

Quote:

If your worldview is atheistic, then naturally any idea of a deity is excluded a priori.

You keep trying to paint this as religion vs. atheism. We are discussing science. When you provide evidence towards the existence of a god or deity, you can enter the realm of science. Without evidence, you have no business with the science world.

Quote:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

Wow, cool! A quote from Thomas Jefferson! How standard a copout for corno!

Quote:

Why should people who know nothing about science or mathematics determine what is taught to children about science or mathematics? You keep trying to turn this into a social/class warfare thing and you're failing miserably.

Quote:

people take notice....this is liberalism. the experts will mandate what your children learn. Parents are uneducated bimbos. the experts know all things.

Well they are uneducated bimbos. You admitted yourself that you know nothing about science. Why should we allow you or anyone else who knows nothing about science to teach our children science? That would be entirely antithetical to the idea of education.

You're talking with Toxic. I am not liberalism. So stop with the "this is liberalism" bullshit and debate me on subjects.

Timetheos
Known Associate

Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 437
Location: Seattle

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:05 am Post subject:

Quote:

there is no reference for the following quote, so I don't accept it (yet).

Corno, there is this thing call Google. It is a wondrous tool that allows you to learn all sorts of wondrous things.

But since you have technical difficulties:

http://www.christianity.ca/Net.....srcid=1862

also

Phillip Johnson, appearing on American Family Radio, January 10, 2003. Cited in Matthew Bobrowsky. 2005. “Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long Time Scales.” Astronomy Education Review. 2005. 1(4):95-118.

You might want to read this while your at it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy.

From the the DI: "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Johnson - "To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is slow creation. When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end."

That is not science. That is inserting God into science.

So you accept the other quotes because there are references for them?

Quote:

You misunderstand Johnson.

I don't misunderstand shit. He has an agenda, and he is working on spreading that agenda.

Quote:

the issue over creation

1) Creation (ala big bang etc.) and evolution are two different topics.
2) Science cannot answer WHY we are here. It can only attempt to explain WHAT happened, using tools such as MATH and PHYSICS.
3) If you want to discuss a magical/mythical/religious creation story with your child, it's perfectly fine by me, but teachers in public schools should teach ACTUAL SCIENCE.

Quote:

well if a school board wanted to teach about the flying spaghetti monster, they should be allowed to do so.

Public schools systems cannot prefer a religion; therefore, you are stuck with a none/all choice. Do you want to teach SCIENCE, or a mish-mash of the world's creation myths?

Quote:

The vast majority of our most respected scientists

But the VAST majority of them are smart enough to separate science from their personal belief systems.

Quote:

That entitles ID

ID isn't entitled shit. It's not science.

Quote:

but the fundamental point at issue here is liberty and freedom

No, the fundamental point is:
1) Providing an education
2) Building and maintaining our economic system (which relies on Science)
3) Separation of church and state

Behe's theories have been debunked, but you won't bother reading books about it, so you are blind.

I implore you to read Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution by Kenneth R. Miller. He thoroughly documents Behe's mistakes, ID's problem, and creationism problems. Miller is an evolutionary biologist and a Catholic.

If science approached every problem as "It's sooo complex, God must have done it", we'd be back in the dark ages.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject:

Quote:

No, but there is scientific EVIDENCE behind scientific theories about the origin of life. I think you're missing my point entirely: EVIDENCE vs. STORY.

our disagreement is very easy to understand and account for. You do not believe in a deity. I do. Therefore, I explain the origin of life by referring to a deity. You will never accept this explanation b/c you don't believe in a deity. It's really as simple as that.
Atheist scientists just don't know where life came from. Theist scientists are satisfied that ultimately everything came from God.
This is not a question of science. It is a question worldview, religion, philosophy.

Quote:

Who this being is or was is not a matter for science.

Exactly. It's religion, not science. Couldn't have said it better myself.

true. but ID says nothing about who this being is or whether he or she or whoever is even still around.

Quote:

Science is the world of using EVIDENCE guided by logic to come to conclusions. Gods and deities are not supported by ANY evidence, and are therefore not science. They are religion:

well many people think that something as simple as a human cell is evidence for the existence of God. The truth is....you would think so to if your worldview included a belief in a deity. Since you don't believe in a deity, you are forced to look elsewhere for an explanation. The ID folks contend that any explanation you provide is inadequate. The anti-ID folks argue that their explanation is adequate. That is a scientific discussion using evidence, logic, and the scientific method.

Quote:

I am trying to paint this discussion as a clash between worldviews or philosophies. A theist looks at the human eye and marvels that anyone could think it to be the result of unguided processes. An atheist regards all invoking of the supernatural as akin to believing in the tooth fairy. That is why you keep asking me for evidence and why I refuse to bite. There is no evidence that would convince you. Your mind is already made up; just as mine is already made up.

Let me ask then....what would constitute sufficient evidence for you that God really did exist?

Quote:

because liberty is a higher value with me than expertise.

Quote:

The key word in the above is "our". Parents should be responsible for their own children's education. I have no right to force my idea of science on your children. and vice versa. That is an idea very hard for libs to grasp.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject:

Ok...I grant that Johnson's wedge strategy is about justifying theistic belief. But while that may be his motive for pursuing ID, ID in and of itself, is pure science. It is origin science. No different than forensics, SETI, and archaeology.

Quote:

3) If you want to discuss a magical/mythical/religious creation story with your child, it's perfectly fine by me, but teachers in public schools should teach ACTUAL SCIENCE.

many of the world's greatest philosophers, mathematicians and scholars generally have regarded theism as more than mythical and magic. Many of thought atheism to be just silly.

and again....I will point out that you are comfortable with schools teaching what YOU think is actual science. Note the coercion. Liberty is not a priority with libs.

Quote:

Public schools systems cannot prefer a religion; therefore, you are stuck with a none/all choice. Do you want to teach SCIENCE, or a mish-mash of the world's creation myths?

well the public schools do prefer a religion. they give preference to atheism which is just as much a religion as theism. I understand religion to be a set of beliefs about the ultimate issues. A religion is not necessarily a belief in some sort of deity.

Quote:

It's not science.

It is pure science. Since ID is about the presence or absence of design not the identity of the designer, it remains science.

Quote:

No, the fundamental point is:
1) Providing an education

this should read....forcing an education based on liberal values on unsuspecting people.

Quote:

If science approached every problem as "It's sooo complex, God must have done it", we'd be back in the dark ages.

well the opposite is true. The vast majority of the early pioneers in science were theists. I can't think of one who wasn't. It was the idea that the world was created and ran in accordance with fixed laws that motivated the first scientists to do their work. In fact, the church was the mother of science and capitalism.

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject:

[quote]our disagreement is very easy to understand and account for. You do not believe in a deity. I do. Therefore, I explain the origin of life by referring to a deity.

Quote:

You will never accept this explanation b/c you don't believe in a deity

I will never accept this because YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THAT GOD. I can provide you with evidence toward evolution and I can provide you with evidence toward the big bang theory. You, however, can provide NOTHING.

Quote:

Atheist scientists just don't know where life came from.

No, but they can provide plenty of evidence towards their positions.

Quote:

Theist scientists are satisfied that ultimately everything came from God.

Then they aren't scientists! If you're willing to accept something as absolutely true based on no evidence at all, you by definition can't be a scientists. Scientists follow the scientific method—look that up sometime.

Quote:

This is not a question of science. It is a question worldview, religion, philosophy.

It shouldn't be, but it becomes it when theists attempt to pass god off as science.

Quote:

true. but ID says nothing about who this being is or whether he or she or whoever is even still around.

Damnit, how many times do I have to explain this to you? The central tenet of ID is that there is a divine being. If you can't provide ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL toward the central tenet (or any tenets of your theory, for that matter) of your "scientific" theory, it isn't scientific.

Quote:

well many people think that something as simple as a human cell is evidence for the existence of God. The truth is....you would think so to if your worldview included a belief in a deity.

No, I'm not that simple-minded and ignorant.

Quote:

Since you don't believe in a deity, you are forced to look elsewhere for an explanation.

No, I'm forced to look elsewhere because I can't believe in something without any evidence at all that it exists.

Quote:

The ID folks contend that any explanation you provide is inadequate.

That's why they're ignorant assholes; even if we CLEARLY PROVED where life came from, they would still contend that our explanation is inadequate.

Quote:

The anti-ID folks argue that their explanation is adequate.

What the fuck corno? I VERY CLEARLY don't think our explanations are adequate. Go back and read where I've said over and over again something along the lines: "we at least have some evidence to our theories". Cut the

Quote:

That is a scientific discussion using evidence, logic, and the scientific method.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS ENTIRELY BASED ON THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE TOWARD YOUR HYPOTENUSE. Stop trying to talk about what is and isn't science if you don't even know what the fuck science is or how it works!

Quote:

A theist looks at the human eye and marvels that anyone could think it to be the result of unguided processes.

And that's why theists AREN'T scientists. You aren't a scientist if you look at something, say "well that's really complex" and then conclude, based off of NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that "it must be made by God".

Quote:

An atheist regards all invoking of the supernatural as akin to believing in the tooth fairy.

Can you prove that your invisible friend exists?

Quote:

That is why you keep asking me for evidence and why I refuse to bite. There is no evidence that would convince you.

No... there's just isn't any evidence.

Quote:

Your mind is already made up; just as mine is already made up.

My mind isn't made up! I want the solution that can be clearly scientifically proven.

Quote:

Let me ask then....what would constitute sufficient evidence for you that God really did exist?

If I knew that, I'd have proven god. Why don't you list some of the "evidence" you have toward god, since you're prancing around with the last few replies as if you have something. Please, corno, share what no other Christian has ever been able to provide.

Quote:

because liberty is a higher value with me than expertise.

Parents don't send their children to school because of liberty value, they send them to school so their children can get an education. If you don't want your child to have an education, keep them home.

Quote:

Parents should be responsible for their own children's education.

Yeah, and they send their children to school for their education.

Quote:

I have no right to force my idea of science on your children. and vice versa.

There is no "idea of science". Something is scientific if it has evidence toward it.
That's all there is too it. There's no "well this is science to me and isn't to you"crap.

Quote:

That is an idea very hard for libs to grasp.

rofl, that coming from the guy who thinks he has a right to force his idea of child-rearing, adoption, and marriage on everyone else. Yeah, libs are the only one that don't grasp something like this! *sarcasm*

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject:

Quote:

no I am not asking you to provide evidence for God's existence. I am asking you what would count as evidence that God exists in your mind. If I took you to the Mississippi river and prayed that God would part the waters so we could walk across....and it happened, would that cause you to believe in God?

Quote:

you list child-rearing, adoption and marriage. I'll start with marriage. My only contention here is that marriage mean what it meant for umpteen million years. adam and eve not adam and steve.
and with regards to adoption, I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt for the same reasons they aren't allowed to give plasma and donate blood.
and child-rearing....I am much more liberty minded here than the left. I think parents ought to be responsible for their own child's education. no forced attendence at public schools. the left wouldn't even allow homeschooling.

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject:

Quote:

But while that may be his motive for pursuing ID, ID in and of itself, is pure science. It is origin science.

No, it isn't science! Science REQUIRES evidence. You just have a non-scientific theory if you can't provide any evidence toward it.

Quote:

and again....I will point out that you are comfortable with schools teaching what YOU think is actual science. Note the coercion.

There is only one science. That which has evidence toward it is supported by the scientific method, and becomes science. That's all there is to it.

Quote:

Liberty is not a priority with libs.

Oh get over yourself you wiretapping, gay marriage-denying piece of shit.

Quote:

well the public schools do prefer a religion.

No, they don't prefer atheism, they prefer science. What do you think they'd teach about god in a science class? "Some people think that God created the earth. There's nothing to show that that's true, but some of you can feel free to accept that 'theory'."

I told you you wanted this to be about atheists vs. religion and not science vs. religion. Spin some more, corno!

Quote:

they give preference to atheism which is just as much a religion as theism.

Quote:

religion |riˈlijən|
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods : ideas about the relationship between science and religion.

Nope. Neither of those apply.

Quote:

I understand religion to be a set of beliefs about the ultimate issues. A religion is not necessarily a belief in some sort of deity.

Sure, corno. Sure.

Quote:

It is pure science. Since ID is about the presence or absence of design not the identity of the designer, it remains science.

Alright. Let's say I agree for a second that ID is not also about the identify of the designer. What evidence can be provided that there is a designer? Can't have science without that evidence.

Quote:

this should read....forcing an education based on liberal values on unsuspecting people.

rofl, yes, basing science in schools on actual science is such a terrible value to force on "unsuspecting people".

Quote:

Uh, cool for the church. How is this relevant?

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject:

Woops.

Last edited by Toxic on Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I am asking you what would count as evidence that God exists in your mind.

I really can't tell you what evidence I want you to provide for your theory.

Quote:

If I took you to the Mississippi river and prayed that God would part the waters so we could walk across....and it happened, would that cause you to believe in God?

Yes, it would be. I'd try and find out if there was something natural in the river that caused the water to do that, but if there wasn't, that would be points in favor of God.

Quote:

I'll start with marriage. My only contention here is that marriage mean what it meant for umpteen million years. adam and eve not adam and steve.

You violate someone's liberty to do what they want based on tradition. That's not an excuse.

Quote:

and with regards to adoption, I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt for the same reasons they aren't allowed to give plasma and donate blood.

WOW. They are allowed to give plasma and donate blood. Are you implying that all gays have AIDs?

Quote:

and child-rearing....I am much more liberty minded here than the left. I think parents ought to be responsible for their own child's education. no forced attendence at public schools.

I don't think attendance should be forced either. If you want to make your children grow up into half-retarded adults, by all means, go ahead. The rest of us will learn real things.

Quote:

the left wouldn't even allow homeschooling.

That's fucking bullshit and you know it.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Toxic wrote:

If I took you to the Mississippi river and prayed that God would part the waters so we could walk across....and it happened, would that cause you to believe in God?

Yes, it would be. I'd try and find out if there was something natural in the river that caused the water to do that, but if there wasn't, that would be points in favor of God.

ok...well you all but admitted my case. This is exactly what theists do. They look for natural causes and expect them. But they are also willing to allow that the origin of some physical structures cannot adequately be accounted for by unguided forces. You just admitted that the parting of the Miss river in response to a prayer would lead you to believe in a deity. Well many other people feel the same way when they examine a human eye or a muscle cell, or the origin of life.

That is why Francis Bacon wrote:
"I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Koran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because His ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."

Quote:

You violate someone's liberty to do what they want based on tradition. That's not an excuse.

First, I am not against violating someone's liberties. Every law by definition does that. I simply contend that cons value liberty much more than libs. Libs want far more govt coercion than cons.

with regards to gay marriage, I am not keeping someone from doing what they want to do. They can still act gay and act married. But they can't call it a marriage. A marriage means something and has meant something for a long time. There is no reason to throw that definition out.

Quote:

WOW. They are allowed to give plasma and donate blood. Are you implying that all gays have AIDs?

I didn't think they were allowed to donate. At least, the donations center I go to always asks us if we've had male to male sex or even been around someone who has had male to male sex.

Quote:

I don't think attendance should be forced either. If you want to make your children grow up into half-retarded adults, by all means, go ahead. The rest of us will learn real things.

I will agree and just add here that private schools and homeschoolers are pulling farther and farther from the public schools in terms of achievement.

Quote:

the left wouldn't even allow homeschooling.

That's bullshit and you know it.

well what happened in California then?

Toxic
Forum Elder

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1555

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:10 pm Post subject:

Quote:

This is exactly what theists do. They look for natural causes and expect them.

They do not look for natural causes and expect them. They ignore natural causes because they're already made up their mind that there is a god and there's no possibility that it could be anything else.

Quote:

You just admitted that the parting of the Miss river in response to a prayer would lead you to believe in a deity.

No, I admitted that the parting of the Mississippi in response to a prayer would be points towards the possibility of a god (that alone would not cause me to instantly profess my belief in a deity) IF there was no other explanation for what happened.

Quote:

"I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Koran, than that this universal frame is without a mind. And therefore God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because His ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."

Absolutely irrelevant.

Quote:

First, I am not against violating someone's liberties.

lol.

The end.

Quote:

with regards to gay marriage, I am not keeping someone from doing what they want to do. They can still act gay and act married. But they can't call it a marriage. A marriage means something and has meant something for a long time. There is no reason to throw that definition out.

You're using the law TO ENFORCE THE DEFINITION OF A WORD. How civil libertarian of you! lol

Quote:

I will agree and just add here that private schools and homeschoolers are pulling farther and farther from the public schools in terms of achievement.

And what things would you blame for that?

[quote]well what happened in California then?[ /quote]

Homeschooling wasn't banned. What about it?

Timetheos
Known Associate

Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 437
Location: Seattle

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Wrong. An example of this difference is SETI doesn't say "I have a signal that I can't explain, therefore it must be aliens". Second, they don't go into elementary schools and try to convince kids that we came from aliens. They don't "preach the controversy". If SETI's agenda was "we want to get kids in elementary schools to believe in the alien theory of life creation on earth" they should be ridiculed.

I know you would like to separate the agenda from practice, but the agenda is the practice.

Toxic nailed this

Quote:

No, it isn't science! Science REQUIRES evidence. You just have a non-scientific theory if you can't provide any evidence toward it.

He speaks the truth. ID can't provide any evidence. Where are the tests of the hypothesis?

Quote:

many of the world's greatest philosophers, mathematicians and scholars generally have regarded theism as more than mythical and magic. Many of thought atheism to be just silly.

This is so illustrative of your complete ignorance of science, which you fully admit.

Quote:

admittedly, I am an idiot when it comes to science.

The scientific method is separate from belief. There are some radicals on both sides that try to bludgeon the other side with it, but the fact is: science is agnostic. Different problem sets and different domains. If something is so complex, we don't understand where it comes from, create NEW theories based on PHYSICS and MATH and CHEMISTRY and test them.

The vast majority of real scientists, especially those of the modern era, learned to separate the two, and understand the different domains to which they apply. Those that didn't end up failing spectacularly on those items which they try to blend (Kepler and the music of the spheres and Einstein's "God doesn't play dice with the universe" comes to mind).

(And before you try to glum on to Einstein's comments, remember that to him God was the sum total of natural law: “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” I'm simply talking about an example where personal belief tried to trump science. We still have the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to this day.)

Quote:

well the public schools do prefer a religion. they give preference to atheism which is just as much a religion as theism.

WHAT the schools are is a debate for a different thread. Feel free to create one if so inclined.

Schools SHOULD be agnostic. I don't think of simply saying "I don't care whether or not there is a god." is a religion. Where is it's church? It's preachers? It's membership?

To be fair to each student, we should not be advocating for or against their religion or beliefs in school. That's for parents (and related community) to decide and work on. This is in keeping with constitutional principles. Thus agnosticism works well. Either that, you your stuck preaching all at equal levels, including atheism in the school (blah).

Using natural techniques in the lab (changing environment, removing populations, etc.), speciation has been observed. That is a true and valid example of the SCIENCE of Evolution.

Where are the tests for ID?

Quote:

But they can't call it a marriage. A marriage means something and has meant something for a long time. There is no reason to throw that definition out.

Sure they can. So what if it has been a long time. Sure it is; people have realized it was a religiously influenced rule that should no longer be applied. Besides, homosexuality has been around for a very long time. The Greeks, the creators of Western Civilization, were ready practitioners.

Science is not the end-all be-all; it is one facet of life. But it is an extremely useful tool that has been critical in the formation of our world. What science "is" shouldn't/can't be defined by a school board or individual parent, because they likely don't know science at all (much like you Corno). What should define science is the majority of experts in the field. If individuals want to present alternatives, they can do that in the house or church.

Dawkins is a bit radical for me, but I heard him speak once, and to paraphrase: If absolutely no God is 1, and there is absolutely God is 8, any scientist worth his salt should be at best a 2, because one can't prove God does not exist. Just I haven't seen a unicorn doesn't mean they don't exist; I could be wrong.

I wish more believers could be so enlightened: they could be wrong. No one should be 8, but at most a 7.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject:

Toxic wrote:

Quote:

This is exactly what theists do. They look for natural causes and expect them.

not true. That is what ID is. they use the canons of science to try and determine what could and what couldn't be produced by natural causes. The Grand Canyon vs. Mt. Rushmore being the classic example.

cornopean
Forum Elder

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I don't think you have SETI right. They examine signals from space to see which ones are just random noise and which ones might be attempts to communicate. They are doing EXACTLY the same science as the ID people.

Quote:

He speaks the truth. ID can't provide any evidence. Where are the tests of the hypothesis?

it's the same test used to determine whether Mt. Rushmore is designed or the product of unguided random forces.

Quote:

Different problem sets and different domains. If something is so complex, we don't understand where it comes from, create NEW theories based on PHYSICS and MATH and CHEMISTRY and test them.

that is what ID scientists do. They test the theory that unguided forces brought life into existence or caused a human cell to form. They test that hypothesis in the same way that forensic scientists would test the hypothesis that a given fire was arson and not accidental.

	LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 2 of 7

Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory