The end of Obamacare?

Page 17 of 24 [ 370 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 24 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

06 Feb 2011, 6:35 pm

Quote:

What you call Scientific Creationism (a stealth name for Intelligent Design) is bollacks. It is balderdash. It has no empirical support. It is an intellectually dishonest attempt to disguise Creationist Nonsense as a scientific discipline. It is not such thing.

Since the Creationists could not suppress science in the centuries passed the will attempt to carry their nonsense on the back of science.

It is balderdash but you've got it the other way around. Scientific Creationism predates the ID movement. The ID movement is a stealth name for creationism. Scientific Creationism is used by the ICR, one of the oldest creationist organizations.

Quote:

But if part of scientific discovery is only accepting what we can test, and evolution is impossible to test due to the vast amount of time required, then that is science fiction.

Test and falsify are not the same as "entirely reproduce". Geologists don't make mountains in their labs. Cosmologists don't recreate the early universe and Astronomers don't induce star birth in their homes. Evolution can be falsified, it's just never happened.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Feb 2011, 7:34 pm

AngelRho wrote:

But if part of scientific discovery is only accepting what we can test, and evolution is impossible to test due to the vast amount of time required, then that is science fiction.

It can, and has, been tested.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

06 Feb 2011, 8:10 pm

AngelRho wrote:

It also doesn't mean evolution DID happen (single cell turn into dinosaur), though. That's the part I have a hard time accepting. What we do see with adaptation is perfectly ok with me. It would be silly to deny something that can happen right in front of you. But if part of scientific discovery is only accepting what we can test, and evolution is impossible to test due to the vast amount of time required, then that is science fiction.

Err.. again, fossil and DNA record says 'hello'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0gAcbAGPH4#t=04m25s

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

07 Feb 2011, 5:15 pm

AngelRho wrote:

DNA alone can show that Chicken and spiders share an ancestor.

_________________
.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Feb 2011, 6:30 pm

Okay then how did life begin? Seriously, science can't realistically explain the origin of life.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

07 Feb 2011, 7:16 pm

No, it can't. They just have a series of abiogensis hypotheses that arent very solid yet. But the Theory of Evolution is something else. That's the change in life over time after the first life emerged (however it arrived).

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

07 Feb 2011, 7:41 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Okay then how did life begin? Seriously, science can't realistically explain the origin of life.

And religion can? The purpose of science is to ask questions and find answers. Religion does not ask questions about origins it just makes vague assumptions. So if we want to find out how life began, the answer lies with science, because we can test and disprove theories that are based on empirical evidence and not the scriptures of long-dead middle-easterners who considered lightning to be God's wrath and were unaware that the world is round let alone part of a solar system that is part of a galaxy that is part of the universe that is part of something we haven't yet observed

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

07 Feb 2011, 7:49 pm

Vigilans wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

Okay then how did life begin? Seriously, science can't realistically explain the origin of life.

Exactly. The difference between em is that one calls it a theory and the other calls it nothing but the truth.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

07 Feb 2011, 7:54 pm

I think religion is important as a moral guideline to many people and obviously brings many people a lot of happiness. I am supportive of positive religious organizations and goals. I really am just against this posturing that some religious people seem to need to do in defending outdated parts of scripture. Scriptures are guidelines to live life by in a moral fashion. When it starts being taken literally you get all of this garbage about how science and religion are incompatible, because some posturing religious figureheads refuse to see the world in any fashion other then the way they were brought up to see it. How come one can't be a deeply religious Christian or Muslim and also accept that science is the answer to the physical questions of the world that their God created? Many pro-science people are rather snarky against people defending their faith and I think this will have to stop if any sort of agreement can come around. My 2 cents at least, as an atheist who just wants to get along with everybody.. lol

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

07 Feb 2011, 8:09 pm

Welcome to the club. I'm also an atheist who isn't a foaming at the mouth type lol. I know for a fact that back then there were more uneducated people so they had to make the writings easy to grasp and at the same time provoke thought so yeah I doubt it was meant to be taken literally. However I also think religion is structurally flawed since it claims speculation as the absolute truth. So yes I do think they're incompatible since they are systematically different. It's not that they're incompatible cuz one says the earth was created in 6 days and the other doesn't have the answer, but they're incompatible because of how they're structured.

However, that doesn't mean science's s**t smells like roses. It relies on the interpretation of facts and not just the facts themselves, so science requires faith as well. I can debate politics, but I don't really like debating religion that much since it leaves much more to interpretation.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

07 Feb 2011, 8:13 pm

Yeah that's true. Perhaps a new world religion needs to be created for the 3rd millennium. Baha'i is about the only religion I see right now as progressive

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

07 Feb 2011, 9:14 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Okay then how did life begin? Seriously, science can't realistically explain the origin of life.

A few people are working on that question, but they have not gotten very far yet. There are a few hypotheses but no solid consensus yet. But that question is not relevant to the issue of evolution vs YECism.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2011, 7:36 am

Orwell wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

But if part of scientific discovery is only accepting what we can test, and evolution is impossible to test due to the vast amount of time required, then that is science fiction.

It can, and has, been tested.

The dazzling success of genetic biology is the best test of Darwin's theory. Tested in the lab.

It is remarkable that Darwin had no idea of how the characteristics of organisms were transmitted from one generation to the next. While Darwin lived there was one man in Europe, a monk at an obscure Czeck monostary who figured it out -- Gregor Mendel. Or more accurately, he was in the early stage of figuring it out. Nevertheless Darwin was able to inductively infer the principle of natural selection as a natural analog to artificial breeding of animals and plants. The only other feat I can think of of this magnitude was the creation of the Periodic Table of Elements by Mendele'ev who managed to do it without a thorough theory of atoms and without a smidgin of quantum physics (which had not been discovered in his lifetime).

ruveyn

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

08 Feb 2011, 6:23 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

Welcome to the club. I'm also an atheist who isn't a foaming at the mouth type lol. I know for a fact that back then there were more uneducated people so they had to make the writings easy to grasp and at the same time provoke thought so yeah I doubt it was meant to be taken literally. However I also think religion is structurally flawed since it claims speculation as the absolute truth. So yes I do think they're incompatible since they are systematically different. It's not that they're incompatible cuz one says the earth was created in 6 days and the other doesn't have the answer, but they're incompatible because of how they're structured.

However, that doesn't mean science's sh** smells like roses. It relies on the interpretation of facts and not just the facts themselves, so science requires faith as well. I can debate politics, but I don't really like debating religion that much since it leaves much more to interpretation.

And the point of reference of 6 days is in relation to what? Are we talking the earth rotating about its axis, are we talking about number of times the galaxy has rotated about its axis, what?

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

08 Feb 2011, 7:52 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

Welcome to the club. I'm also an atheist who isn't a foaming at the mouth type lol. I know for a fact that back then there were more uneducated people so they had to make the writings easy to grasp and at the same time provoke thought so yeah I doubt it was meant to be taken literally. However I also think religion is structurally flawed since it claims speculation as the absolute truth. So yes I do think they're incompatible since they are systematically different. It's not that they're incompatible cuz one says the earth was created in 6 days and the other doesn't have the answer, but they're incompatible because of how they're structured.

However, that doesn't mean science's sh** smells like roses. It relies on the interpretation of facts and not just the facts themselves, so science requires faith as well. I can debate politics, but I don't really like debating religion that much since it leaves much more to interpretation.

And the point of reference of 6 days is in relation to what? Are we talking the earth rotating about its axis, are we talking about number of times the galaxy has rotated about its axis, what?

You don't have any reading comprehension do you? Why are you trying to pick an argument about something you already agree on?

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

08 Feb 2011, 8:39 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

Welcome to the club. I'm also an atheist who isn't a foaming at the mouth type lol. I know for a fact that back then there were more uneducated people so they had to make the writings easy to grasp and at the same time provoke thought so yeah I doubt it was meant to be taken literally. However I also think religion is structurally flawed since it claims speculation as the absolute truth. So yes I do think they're incompatible since they are systematically different. It's not that they're incompatible cuz one says the earth was created in 6 days and the other doesn't have the answer, but they're incompatible because of how they're structured.

However, that doesn't mean science's sh** smells like roses. It relies on the interpretation of facts and not just the facts themselves, so science requires faith as well. I can debate politics, but I don't really like debating religion that much since it leaves much more to interpretation.

And the point of reference of 6 days is in relation to what? Are we talking the earth rotating about its axis, are we talking about number of times the galaxy has rotated about its axis, what?

I'm talking about how the bible says God created the Earth in six days. By "how they're structured", I meant how religion and science are structured as systems.

@ marshall: How's he trying to pick an argument and what does he agree on? I'm atheist and he believes in God so looks like we're in disagreement.

Page 17 of 24 [ 370 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 24 Next

Jump to:

The end of Obamacare? Post Reply New Topic

The end of Obamacare?