I would also mention I have a problem with schools trying to teach global warming as fact. That field belongs in a poly/sci class, not an earth science one.
[quote]pat wrote:
Science is limited in scope. It can only discover that which already exists.It creates or destroys nothing. It can materialize nothing.
Many have taken it, that because science has debunked somethings that used to be attributed to God, that God therefore does not exist. That is a flying leap deduction, they can only prove that ‘X’ was not derived directly from God, but in no way does that dispell the notion of the existence of God.
I find therefore that many scientists are weak minded people. They will take an extremely small amount of information and make giant absolute conclusions out of them, often the next generation finds the errors in their way of thinking.
Science is useful, but it is not the end all be all of information gathering, it is only a tool.[/quote]
It’s the most effective tool we have.
I like your generalizations.
As opposed to religion which speaks in absolutes.
The religious folks tend to be weak minded. If anything goes against their beliefs, then you are wrong and should die.
See : dark ages, crusades, etc…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think the only problem is when theories get labeled as fact in the classroom. I’m not specifically talking about evolution, but also things like the structure of the atom, most of biology for that matter.
As long as they teach kids when things are indeed theory or a “best guess” type situation, I have no problem with it.
For example they used to teach kids that if you were doing manual labor, you should be taking salt tabs. That used to be a “fact”.[/quote]
When you get to higher levels they tell you they lied. Just like its a lie to say “I before E except after C”.
You don’t need to know that the cloud electron model is basically bullshit, or that oxidation numbers are often meaningless, or that the electron configuration shell order is NEVER FUCKING RIGHT >_0
Plus, Evolution is presented as a theory. The only theory. The theory that bascically underlies ALL biology. Bio 101 makes ZERO sense without Evolution.
[quote]pat wrote:
Science is limited in scope. It can only discover that which already exists.It creates or destroys nothing. It can materialize nothing. Many have taken it, that because science has debunked somethings that used to be attributed to God, that God therefore does not exist.
That is a flying leap deduction, they can only prove that ‘X’ was not derived directly from God, but in no way does that dispell the notion of the existence of God. I find therefore that many scientists are weak minded people.
They will take an extremely small amount of information and make giant absolute conclusions out of them, often the next generation finds the errors in their way of thinking. Science is useful, but it is not the end all be all of information gathering, it is only a tool.[/quote]
As opposed to those who take comfort in an invisible man who they KNOW loves them. Yeah, those people are so strong willed.
Scientists don’t say they’ve DISPROVED God, they say there is ZERO evidence for him, and that believing in him is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
pat wrote:
Science is limited in scope. It can only discover that which already exists.It creates or destroys nothing. It can materialize nothing.
Many have taken it, that because science has debunked somethings that used to be attributed to God, that God therefore does not exist. That is a flying leap deduction, they can only prove that ‘X’ was not derived directly from God, but in no way does that dispell the notion of the existence of God.
I find therefore that many scientists are weak minded people. They will take an extremely small amount of information and make giant absolute conclusions out of them, often the next generation finds the errors in their way of thinking. Science is useful, but it is not the end all be all of information gathering, it is only a tool.
It’s the most effective tool we have.
I like your generalizations.
As opposed to religion which speaks in absolutes.
The religious folks tend to be weak minded. If anything goes against their beliefs, then you are wrong and should die.
See : dark ages, crusades, etc…[/quote]
I like how you just insulted generalization, and at the same time generalized most of the population on the planet.
Science often glosses over many of it’s logical leaps. Most of the time they are fairly sound and detached from external agenda. I’m just saying teachers should point out the logical leaps too.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I think the only problem is when theories get labeled as fact in the classroom. I’m not specifically talking about evolution, but also things like the structure of the atom, most of biology for that matter.
As long as they teach kids when things are indeed theory or a “best guess” type situation, I have no problem with it.
For example they used to teach kids that if you were doing manual labor, you should be taking salt tabs. That used to be a “fact”.
When you get to higher levels they tell you they lied. Just like its a lie to say “I before E except after C”.
You don’t need to know that the cloud electron model is basically bullshit, or that oxidation numbers are often meaningless, or that the electron configuration shell order is NEVER FUCKING RIGHT >_0
Plus, Evolution is presented as a theory. The only theory. The theory that bascically underlies ALL biology. Bio 101 makes ZERO sense without Evolution. [/quote]
Amen on the chemistry stuff. I was good friends with a ChemE in college. After he graduated, the one thing he said he learned was that chemistry has no direct knowledge of anything.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:
Science is limited in scope. It can only discover that which already exists.It creates or destroys nothing. It can materialize nothing. Many have taken it, that because science has debunked somethings that used to be attributed to God, that God therefore does not exist.
That is a flying leap deduction, they can only prove that ‘X’ was not derived directly from God, but in no way does that dispell the notion of the existence of God. I find therefore that many scientists are weak minded people.
They will take an extremely small amount of information and make giant absolute conclusions out of them, often the next generation finds the errors in their way of thinking. Science is useful, but it is not the end all be all of information gathering, it is only a tool.
As opposed to those who take comfort in an invisible man who they KNOW loves them. Yeah, those people are so strong willed.
Scientists don’t say they’ve DISPROVED God, they say there is ZERO evidence for him, and that believing in him is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa.[/quote]
LOL.
Well said.
But I bet most scientists believe in God. I doubt they’re all atheists.
The thing is, when you start getting into the bigger questions, science and philosophy and physics all kind of run together. Nothing is true, nothing is untrue.
I wish people wouldn’t make the most complicated issue in the mind of man so black and white like they like to… “No, it’s a Christian God, no it’s a Muslim god, no, there is no God!”.
Those are the weakest minds of all, those that believe blindly without ever questioning their faith in whatever it is they believe.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
blazindave wrote:
pat wrote:
Science is limited in scope. It can only discover that which already exists.It creates or destroys nothing. It can materialize nothing.
Many have taken it, that because science has debunked somethings that used to be attributed to God, that God therefore does not exist. That is a flying leap deduction, they can only prove that ‘X’ was not derived directly from God, but in no way does that dispell the notion of the existence of God.
I find therefore that many scientists are weak minded people. They will take an extremely small amount of information and make giant absolute conclusions out of them, often the next generation finds the errors in their way of thinking. Science is useful, but it is not the end all be all of information gathering, it is only a tool.
It’s the most effective tool we have.
I like your generalizations.
As opposed to religion which speaks in absolutes.
The religious folks tend to be weak minded. If anything goes against their beliefs, then you are wrong and should die.
See : dark ages, crusades, etc…
I like how you just insulted generalization, and at the same time generalized most of the population on the planet.[/quote]
Gotta fight fire with fire, right? 
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I think the only problem is when theories get labeled as fact in the classroom. I’m not specifically talking about evolution, but also things like the structure of the atom, most of biology for that matter.
As long as they teach kids when things are indeed theory or a “best guess” type situation, I have no problem with it.
For example they used to teach kids that if you were doing manual labor, you should be taking salt tabs. That used to be a “fact”.
When you get to higher levels they tell you they lied. Just like its a lie to say “I before E except after C”.
You don’t need to know that the cloud electron model is basically bullshit, or that oxidation numbers are often meaningless, or that the electron configuration shell order is NEVER FUCKING RIGHT >_0
Plus, Evolution is presented as a theory. The only theory. The theory that bascically underlies ALL biology. Bio 101 makes ZERO sense without Evolution.
Amen on the chemistry stuff. I was good friends with a ChemE in college. After he graduated, the one thing he said he learned was that chemistry has no direct knowledge of anything.[/quote]
That’s because all chem is is applied physics. And physics becomes 98% theoretical bullshit with a million exceptions on a atomic scale 8D.
Then how about all the shit going on at CERN?
HUH?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:
Science is limited in scope. It can only discover that which already exists.It creates or destroys nothing. It can materialize nothing. Many have taken it, that because science has debunked somethings that used to be attributed to God, that God therefore does not exist.
That is a flying leap deduction, they can only prove that ‘X’ was not derived directly from God, but in no way does that dispell the notion of the existence of God. I find therefore that many scientists are weak minded people.
They will take an extremely small amount of information and make giant absolute conclusions out of them, often the next generation finds the errors in their way of thinking. Science is useful, but it is not the end all be all of information gathering, it is only a tool.
As opposed to those who take comfort in an invisible man who they KNOW loves them. Yeah, those people are so strong willed.
Scientists don’t say they’ve DISPROVED God, they say there is ZERO evidence for him, and that believing in him is like believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa.[/quote]
Many have. Who said God was a man?
Sure they have.
And there is in fact evidence for the existence of God, don’t expect me to provide it for you, please see the other 50 threads discussing the topic. Theories and rationals have been put forth many times regarding the God’s existence on this forum.
This is one time I would encourage you to check the old posts because the arguments are long a laborious. Spare me the crap that because you don’t believe it you don’t have to prove it, it’s a slippery slope and an idiotic one at that. If you wish to argue against any of them.
Simply put, it is more logical to believe that everything came from something than to believe that nothing begat everything.
Those guys tend to leave out a lot of philosophy. Plantinga’s critique of Dawkins made pretty short work of most of his writings.
I consider myself a scientist, and no I’m not an atheist.
This is my scientific(ish) opinion of evolution:
There have never been any witness to the creation of any particle of matter ever.
The best science can guess at in terms of origins only amounts to something like the big band, leaving to question the origins of gases in space.
No matter how much is determined with science I’m always left with the thought that ultimately, something came from nothing.
I see it no less likely that some gases out in space spontaneously originated from nothingness, than for something more in the present state of the universe to of originated out of nothingness.
Or maybe we’re just not at a stage where we can assume we know anything about anything.
We don’t KNOW the Bible is the word of God.
We don’t KNOW the Vedas are the word of God.
We don’t KNOW evolution happened.
We don’t KNOW the Big Bang happened.
All we have is logic, and most rational people draw their conclusions from logic.
All I can say is that evolution looks more viable to ME than a lot of religious texts.
I’m really at a loss as to why religion and science can’t get along. We still don’t know what happened prior to the Big Bang. We don’t know what caused it. Could that be… God?
Science can admit it isn’t always right, now if religion could do the same… but God forbid beliefs get challenged (was that a pun? I didn’t intend it).
Or is the problem more simple than that? Is it because a lot of people associate God with a large old man in the clouds who looks suspiciously like Santa?
And am I just rambling?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I consider myself a scientist, and no I’m not an atheist.
This is my scientific(ish) opinion of evolution:
There have never been any witness to the creation of any particle of matter ever.
The best science can guess at in terms of origins only amounts to something like the big band, leaving to question the origins of gases in space.[/quote]
Nothing to do with evolution. Evolution =/= the origin of life. You’re thinking of abiogenisis, something that is taught as VERY tentative in schools.
[quote]
No matter how much is determined with science I’m always left with the thought that ultimately, something came from nothing.[/quote]
So because we don’t understand it, it must be a benevolent sentient being? This isn’t proof, its saying “I don’t know” and pretending that a reason to believe in anything.
[quote]
I see it no less likely that some gases out in space spontaneously originated from nothingness, than for something more in the present state of the universe to of originated out of nothingness.[/quote]
Many would say your view of TIME is your problem. What if time is a big ass circle that has always existed? What if our entire universe is actually an electron contains in another universe? What if it was a giant aliens snot from a sneeze? You just don’t know. Not knowing is not a reason to believe in something.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Or maybe we’re just not at a stage where we can assume we know anything about anything.
We don’t KNOW the Bible is the word of God.
We don’t KNOW the Vedas are the word of God.
We don’t KNOW evolution happened.
We don’t KNOW the Big Bang happened.
All we have is logic, and most rational people draw their conclusions from logic.
All I can say is that evolution looks more viable to ME than a lot of religious texts.
I’m really at a loss as to why religion and science can’t get along. We still don’t know what happened prior to the Big Bang. We don’t know what caused it. Could that be… God?[/quote]
I really, really, really don’t get why people can’t live with this thought.
[quote]
Science can admit it isn’t always right, now if religion could do the same… but God forbid beliefs get challenged (was that a pun? I didn’t intend it).
Or is the problem more simple than that? Is it because a lot of people associate God with a large old man in the clouds who looks suspiciously like Santa?[/quote]
A lot of people feel god is EXACTLY that. A sentient being. If you want to say there is A POWER out there that started shit,l well, good for you. That doesn’t make it a sentient being, or even a being at all. The argument “something can’t come from nothing” is only a argument for a “greater power” not a “greater being”.
[quote]
And am I just rambling?[/quote]
Yes. Most certainly.
Why do we have logic - specifically, the laws of logic - and where does it come from?
Honestly, there is zilch for evidence of macro evolution. It’s a pipe dream at this point. Creationism is actually viable to some extent, and IMO the best theory we have.
I’m always trying to learn more about religion but like everyone else don’t know anything really. Hence my agnosticism.
[quote]blazindave wrote:
pat wrote:
Science is limited in scope. It can only discover that which already exists.It creates or destroys nothing. It can materialize nothing.
Many have taken it, that because science has debunked somethings that used to be attributed to God, that God therefore does not exist. That is a flying leap deduction, they can only prove that ‘X’ was not derived directly from God, but in no way does that dispell the notion of the existence of God.
I find therefore that many scientists are weak minded people. They will take an extremely small amount of information and make giant absolute conclusions out of them, often the next generation finds the errors in their way of thinking.
Science is useful, but it is not the end all be all of information gathering, it is only a tool.
It’s the most effective tool we have.
I like your generalizations.
As opposed to religion which speaks in absolutes.
The religious folks tend to be weak minded. If anything goes against their beliefs, then you are wrong and should die.
See : dark ages, crusades, etc…[/quote]
Religious beliefs are the most impossible beliefs to disprove.
I like your generalizations.
Science by nature speaks in absolutes.
The science folks tend to be weak minded. If any thought goes against their findings, then you are unfit for society and should remain ostracized.
See: Universities, North Korea, etc…