Richie_LaMontre
Registered Member
Science vs Religion
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
I'll leave that to you. Im no expert, I just read what they write, watch public T.V. and laugh about it. Because they assume so many things as fact. And as yet, very little has been proven.
I think you are confusing evolutionary science with religion here...
We are nothing special. Life on Earth came about by pure chance, and it evolved the way it did by pure chance. The more we look into fields like Quantum Physics, the more we find that chance and randomness play a huge role in the way the universe evolved and functions, so why should we be a special case?
I think you are confusing evolutionary science with religion here...
We are nothing special. Life on Earth came about by pure chance, and it evolved the way it did by pure chance. The more we look into fields like Quantum Physics, the more we find that chance and randomness play a huge role in the way the universe evolved and functions, so why should we be a special case?
Hold on there Xelios....
Quote Xelios: "We are nothing special. Life on Earth came about by pure chance, and it evolved the way it did by pure chance."
Speak for yourself if you think we are not "special". However humans are the only species to have evolved conceptual conscienceness, no other species on earth has reached the evolutionary scale as humans. If that's not special, I don't know how you would "define" the word "special"!! Even if perhaps our being here is by pure chance, to be human is to be special.
Quote Xelios: "We are nothing special. Life on Earth came about by pure chance, and it evolved the way it did by pure chance."
Speak for yourself if you think we are not "special". However humans are the only species to have evolved conceptual conscienceness, no other species on earth has reached the evolutionary scale as humans. If that's not special, I don't know how you would "define" the word "special"!! Even if perhaps our being here is by pure chance, to be human is to be special.
I don't see it as special at all. I see it as a simple evolutionary trait other animals have not yet evolved. It's a survival tool, that's all. Some whales can communicate with other whales no matter where they are in the world. Before we started polluting the sea with noise that is, now they can only communicate with whales a few hundred kilometers away. Whales like these had a global communications network before we even came to exist.
Point is, while no other animal may have evolved conceptual conciousness yet, they have developed many things that are more advanced than our 'traits' (ex. enhanced smell in dogs, global communication in whales, UV vision of bees etc.). We just happen to develop a trait that also allows us to discover things such as science, religion, art and so on. Personally I don't feel that makes us more important or special than any other animal on this planet.
Point is, while no other animal may have evolved conceptual conciousness yet, they have developed many things that are more advanced than our 'traits' (ex. enhanced smell in dogs, global communication in whales, UV vision of bees etc.). We just happen to develop a trait that also allows us to discover things such as science, religion, art and so on. Personally I don't feel that makes us more important or special than any other animal on this planet.
Do you belittle yourself so much?
Humans are the only species that have been able to manipulate nature at will, "nuclear power, x-ray, etc.." Humans are the only species that may commit genocide of the whole race by Nuclear War, now no freaking animal would do that!, only the irational animal that we find in THEISTS!!
Humans are the only species that have been able to manipulate nature at will, "nuclear power, x-ray, etc.." Humans are the only species that may commit genocide of the whole race by Nuclear War, now no freaking animal would do that!, only the irational animal that we find in THEISTS!!
In that sense it is special Godless. But when you look at the whole scheme of things, the Earth, the galaxy, the universe, we are only another species of animal. And how are we to judge what is better? Sure, we're self aware, we have technology, but look what that technology and knowlege is costing us. Nuclear warfare, machine guns, biological weapons, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, smog, pollution and the list goes on and on. How can we honestly say we are better than, say, a blue whale when we're destroying not only ourselves but our habitat as well.
Richie,
I said: <i>I think you're confusion evolution and abiogenesis.</i>
You said: <i>Yes, thank you. Both go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other.</i>
Huh? Evolution describes how complex life developed from simpler life. Abiogenesis deals with the question of how life initially started. The questions are quite separate.
I said: <i>Just like we'll never know how electrons act because nobody will ever be as small as an electron, right?</i>
You replied: <i>Ah ok, here we go, personal insults......typical.</i>
I don't see how my comment was an insult. My point was that you don't need to have been there at the formation of the solar system to describe how it formed with confidence. Similarly, you don't need to have been there at the formation of life to describe how it started with confidence. See?
<i>if by "success" you mean it has managed to hang on for years on end, your right.</i>
No, when scientists talk about the "success" of a theory, they mean how well it has explained subsequent observations, made predictions, fitted with new and old findings, given new insight into nature, led to new lines of inquiry, and so on. Evolution, by such criteria, is a spectacularly successful theory.
<i>The little diagram in our childrens text books for years? Supposedly showing evolution from tadpole to fetus?</i>
I am confused. Which text books are you talking about? I have never seen a diagram showing "evolution" of tadpoles into fetuses.
<i>Sir please, I would appreciate it if you would not treat me like someone who just "fell off the turnip truck".</i>
Just to be sure, let me ask you directly, then:
Have you read Richard Dawkin's <i>The Blind Watchmaker</i> or <i>The Selfish Gene</i>?
Do you have any training in biology?
What texts have you read on evolution?
<i>The conditions had to exist in order for life to "randomly" begin on this planet.</i>
Obviously I agree that the conditions had to be right, but the process may not have been random. Certain chemicals have a tendency to combine in certain ways. The formation of amino acids, for example, is a very common natural process which happens in life-free environments.
<i>I'll leave that to you. Im no expert, I just read what they write, watch public T.V. and laugh about it.</i>
Public TV, with some rare exceptions, is not a good source of information about evolution.
I said: <i>I think you're confusion evolution and abiogenesis.</i>
You said: <i>Yes, thank you. Both go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other.</i>
Huh? Evolution describes how complex life developed from simpler life. Abiogenesis deals with the question of how life initially started. The questions are quite separate.
I said: <i>Just like we'll never know how electrons act because nobody will ever be as small as an electron, right?</i>
You replied: <i>Ah ok, here we go, personal insults......typical.</i>
I don't see how my comment was an insult. My point was that you don't need to have been there at the formation of the solar system to describe how it formed with confidence. Similarly, you don't need to have been there at the formation of life to describe how it started with confidence. See?
<i>if by "success" you mean it has managed to hang on for years on end, your right.</i>
No, when scientists talk about the "success" of a theory, they mean how well it has explained subsequent observations, made predictions, fitted with new and old findings, given new insight into nature, led to new lines of inquiry, and so on. Evolution, by such criteria, is a spectacularly successful theory.
<i>The little diagram in our childrens text books for years? Supposedly showing evolution from tadpole to fetus?</i>
I am confused. Which text books are you talking about? I have never seen a diagram showing "evolution" of tadpoles into fetuses.
<i>Sir please, I would appreciate it if you would not treat me like someone who just "fell off the turnip truck".</i>
Just to be sure, let me ask you directly, then:
Have you read Richard Dawkin's <i>The Blind Watchmaker</i> or <i>The Selfish Gene</i>?
Do you have any training in biology?
What texts have you read on evolution?
<i>The conditions had to exist in order for life to "randomly" begin on this planet.</i>
Obviously I agree that the conditions had to be right, but the process may not have been random. Certain chemicals have a tendency to combine in certain ways. The formation of amino acids, for example, is a very common natural process which happens in life-free environments.
<i>I'll leave that to you. Im no expert, I just read what they write, watch public T.V. and laugh about it.</i>
Public TV, with some rare exceptions, is not a good source of information about evolution.
Richie_LaMontre
Registered Member
To change your mind or mine is really kind of a futile endeavor, wouldn't you say? Thats the nature of "beliefs". Besides, I've done this a thousand times and I have yet to hear any "free thinking". Just alot of recycled none-sense made to sound like science through "jargon".
Excellent point. Hence my incognizance when it comes to debating anything that has to do with religion and beliefs.
Excellent point. Hence my incognizance when it comes to debating anything that has to do with religion and beliefs.
Richie_LaMontre
Registered Member
Hmmm. I normally say that for politics. Discussion on politics normally depends on one's interpretation of events - the "spin".
My beliefs on religion were changed from reading this forum.
The pivotal post was by "boris" on the topic of souls (religion archives).
Richie,
And if you have done this a thousand times, with presumably many other debaters, and have received the same response, then doesn’t indicate that perhaps you might be the obstinate one?
And if you have been through this that many times how is it possible that you still haven’t learnt the definition of a scientific theory and other basics like the difference between evolution and abiogenesis?
It looks like you are the only one that has fixed beliefs and is not prepared to listen to others.
James is probably the most impartial poster on these forums and has demonstrated many times that he is not prepared to take sides without very good reason. All he has done so far is to point out significant and basic fallacies in your reasoning and knowledge.
The purpose of debate is not to change someone’s mind but to discuss a question by considering opposing arguments. At the end, and in the light of the debate, the participants might choose to alter their position or adjust their arguments in a later debate. Under unusual conditions the proponents might even agree with each other.
However, the important point is that the debaters at least attempt to understand both sides of the debate and learn from the experience before they move on. You appear to have not learnt anything, even the basics, from your claimed thousand previous attempts. This would indicate that you are not looking for ‘free thinkers’ but others who are going to agree with your unwavering blinkered uneducated position.
If you think you have a strong case then make an effort to understand the issues and fight for your argument. You and we might learn something from the exchange of ideas.
Helpfully
Cris
So if you think trying to debate like this is futile then why are you here?
And if you have done this a thousand times, with presumably many other debaters, and have received the same response, then doesn’t indicate that perhaps you might be the obstinate one?
And if you have been through this that many times how is it possible that you still haven’t learnt the definition of a scientific theory and other basics like the difference between evolution and abiogenesis?
It looks like you are the only one that has fixed beliefs and is not prepared to listen to others.
James is probably the most impartial poster on these forums and has demonstrated many times that he is not prepared to take sides without very good reason. All he has done so far is to point out significant and basic fallacies in your reasoning and knowledge.
The purpose of debate is not to change someone’s mind but to discuss a question by considering opposing arguments. At the end, and in the light of the debate, the participants might choose to alter their position or adjust their arguments in a later debate. Under unusual conditions the proponents might even agree with each other.
However, the important point is that the debaters at least attempt to understand both sides of the debate and learn from the experience before they move on. You appear to have not learnt anything, even the basics, from your claimed thousand previous attempts. This would indicate that you are not looking for ‘free thinkers’ but others who are going to agree with your unwavering blinkered uneducated position.
If you think you have a strong case then make an effort to understand the issues and fight for your argument. You and we might learn something from the exchange of ideas.
Helpfully
Cris
Yes, I do read sites about Creationism now and then. And every time I do, I'm amazed that people take myths and fairy tales so seriously. What you seem to be saying is: "I have these beliefs based on nothing, and I intend to stick by them regardless of any evidence to the contrary." That is called fanaticism, but you have dressed it up as a reasonable idea. Those sites I linked to are not
"jargon" and "none-sense". They look at evidence. Evidence you could examine for yourself. You do of course have the right to remain blissfully ignorant of reality, and call it whatever you want. But don't assume I am like you. I have read enough of Creationism to know there is absolutely nothing in it. I have read creation myths from many religons, have read many pseudo-scientific theories about our origins, and have read some about evolution theories. Evolution has more supporting evidence than any other idea I have encountered. Thus it is my favourite option at the moment. This is a choice I have made after considering the available evidence. This is very different from your idea of ignoring all things outside your own belief and refusing to consider alternatives.
No bias there.
When I hear another creation theory I will do the same thing I always do: weigh it against what I know to be true, within a degree of certainty.
What you report as jargon is undisputed fact accepted by all democratic peoples as truth. The belief that the earth was created 6,000 years ago is laughable. The only reason one would latch onto that fantasy is by way of the opinion of a fringe religious fanatisist. You may think you act out of loyalty to that person that shared that pearl of wisdom, but instead you disgrace the human brain. Today we have tools that show the emptiness of that conjecture.
Richie_LaMontre
Registered Member
Originally posted by Teg
"No bias there.
When I hear another creation theory I will do the same thing I always do: weigh it against what I know to be true, within a degree of certainty."
What YOU know? Who are you to judge anothers beliefs? And secondly, who do these evolutionary theorists think they are to push that crap down are childrens throats as "facts"?
"What you report as jargon is undisputed fact accepted by all democratic peoples as truth."
Ya know? Thats exactly what the catholic church used to say, and still say, about their doctrines as well. You see where free thinking has brought them? To imperialize over a topic of this sort is nothing more than a ploy of control. "R E L I G I O N"
"The belief that the earth was created 6,000 years ago is laughable."
I believe you are referring to the bible? According to the bible, the earth was here in exsistance, prior to the Genesis account.
"The only reason one would latch onto that fantasy is by way of the opinion of a fringe religious fanatisist."
And you "latched" onto your fantasy how? Evolutionary theorists are nothing more than "priests" in a "church". Same dogma, different packaging.
"You may think you act out of loyalty to that person that shared that pearl of wisdom, but instead you disgrace the human brain."
Here we have the evolutionists research tactics. Assume they know the what the entire person looked like based upon a bone fragment.
"Today we have tools that show the emptiness of that conjecture."
Your tools are simply hypothoses (hyothosi?) WHATEVER! Which are based upon years and years of the same kind of "conjecture". No less so, and certainly no more convincing. It simply has a new coat of paint which the religious community has been unable, or perhaps unwilling to apply.
Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
What YOU know? Who are you to judge anothers beliefs? And secondly, who do these evolutionary theorists think they are to push that crap down are childrens throats as "facts"?
It's not taught as fact, it is taught as scientific theory. As with every scientific theory, it is open to questioning, analysis, debate, and contradiction. However, any valid scientific questioning of an established theory must have valid scientific supporting evidence.
Ya know? Thats exactly what the catholic church used to say, and still say, about their doctrines as well. You see where free thinking has brought them? To imperialize over a topic of this sort is nothing more than a ploy of control. "R E L I G I O N"
You need to get together with Jan and discuss the meaning of the word religion. Below, for your benefit, are a couple of dictionary excerpts. As you will note, the belief in God(s) and/or the supernatural are central to the definition of religion. The theory of evolution makes no mention of God(s) or the supernatural. Neither positive nor negative ones.
religion n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
religion
\Re*li"gion\, n. [F., from L. religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.] 1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.
I believe you are referring to the bible? According to the bible, the earth was here in exsistance, prior to the Genesis account.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Seems to me to be rather explicit but I will entertain your idea. Please cite your reference.
Here we have the evolutionists research tactics. Assume they know the what the entire person looked like based upon a bone fragment.
Scientists do make assumptions. However, when they do so they must state that they are making an assumption and must provide evidence that supports the assumption.
To address your example: Bone fragments can often provide evidence as to the rest of the skeleton. Forensic science and anthropology use these methods on a daily basis to identify victims from partial, sometimes miniscule, pieces of evidence.
Your tools are simply hypothoses (hyothosi?) WHATEVER! Which are based upon years and years of the same kind of "conjecture". No less so, and certainly no more convincing. It simply has a new coat of paint which the religious community has been unable, or perhaps unwilling to apply.
Hypotheses. Scientific hypotheses are often based upon conjecture and assumption. They are also defined in a formal manner so as to make them testable and refutable.
Experimentation, prediction, verification with known facts, etc. are then applied to find whether the hypothesis can "survive" (i.e. does it adequately explain those facts). It's conjectures and assumption must be tested and validated. As the hypothesis is proven to match the facts it will be increasingly accepted to be a valid scientific theory. As the theory continues to build evidence it is considered stronger and gains more and more acceptance. Eventually, some few theories become accepted as Laws.
Please note that at any time, any single, repeatable, testable, fact that directly contradicts the theory will invalidate that theory. The theory may then be modified in order to explain a contradiction but it must then still explain, in it's modified form, all the previous facts.
Also note that the facts it must explain must be relevant to the formal proposition of the theory (e.g. Proof of God would not invalidate the theory of evolution). Evolution stands on it's own proofs.
Likewise disproof of any particular "fact" does not invalidate the theory (e.g. Proof that the Piltdown man was a hoax). All it does is disprove the "fact". In other words to disprove evolution you must disprove every piece of supporting evidence, not just a few hoaxes or errors that slipped through the cracks.
~Raithere
What YOU know? Who are you to judge anothers beliefs? And secondly, who do these evolutionary theorists think they are to push that crap down are childrens throats as "facts"?
It's not taught as fact, it is taught as scientific theory. As with every scientific theory, it is open to questioning, analysis, debate, and contradiction. However, any valid scientific questioning of an established theory must have valid scientific supporting evidence.
Ya know? Thats exactly what the catholic church used to say, and still say, about their doctrines as well. You see where free thinking has brought them? To imperialize over a topic of this sort is nothing more than a ploy of control. "R E L I G I O N"
You need to get together with Jan and discuss the meaning of the word religion. Below, for your benefit, are a couple of dictionary excerpts. As you will note, the belief in God(s) and/or the supernatural are central to the definition of religion. The theory of evolution makes no mention of God(s) or the supernatural. Neither positive nor negative ones.
religion n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
religion
\Re*li"gion\, n. [F., from L. religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.] 1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.
I believe you are referring to the bible? According to the bible, the earth was here in exsistance, prior to the Genesis account.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Seems to me to be rather explicit but I will entertain your idea. Please cite your reference.
Here we have the evolutionists research tactics. Assume they know the what the entire person looked like based upon a bone fragment.
Scientists do make assumptions. However, when they do so they must state that they are making an assumption and must provide evidence that supports the assumption.
To address your example: Bone fragments can often provide evidence as to the rest of the skeleton. Forensic science and anthropology use these methods on a daily basis to identify victims from partial, sometimes miniscule, pieces of evidence.
Your tools are simply hypothoses (hyothosi?) WHATEVER! Which are based upon years and years of the same kind of "conjecture". No less so, and certainly no more convincing. It simply has a new coat of paint which the religious community has been unable, or perhaps unwilling to apply.
Hypotheses. Scientific hypotheses are often based upon conjecture and assumption. They are also defined in a formal manner so as to make them testable and refutable.
Experimentation, prediction, verification with known facts, etc. are then applied to find whether the hypothesis can "survive" (i.e. does it adequately explain those facts). It's conjectures and assumption must be tested and validated. As the hypothesis is proven to match the facts it will be increasingly accepted to be a valid scientific theory. As the theory continues to build evidence it is considered stronger and gains more and more acceptance. Eventually, some few theories become accepted as Laws.
Please note that at any time, any single, repeatable, testable, fact that directly contradicts the theory will invalidate that theory. The theory may then be modified in order to explain a contradiction but it must then still explain, in it's modified form, all the previous facts.
Also note that the facts it must explain must be relevant to the formal proposition of the theory (e.g. Proof of God would not invalidate the theory of evolution). Evolution stands on it's own proofs.
Likewise disproof of any particular "fact" does not invalidate the theory (e.g. Proof that the Piltdown man was a hoax). All it does is disprove the "fact". In other words to disprove evolution you must disprove every piece of supporting evidence, not just a few hoaxes or errors that slipped through the cracks.
~Raithere
Richie_LaMontre
Registered Member
Originally posted by Raithere
Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
What YOU know? Who are you to judge anothers beliefs? And secondly, who do these evolutionary theorists think they are to push that crap down are childrens throats as "facts"?
"It's not taught as fact, it is taught as scientific theory."
Oh really? So if my child states in a biology class that man was created and not evolved, he doesn't get an an "F"? Come now! I think my point here is clear and valid. And your sidestepping me with all your "support" for your theory.
"As with every scientific theory, it is open to questioning, analysis, debate, and contradiction."
Not in a college classroom it isn't.
"However, any valid scientific questioning of an established theory must have valid scientific supporting evidence."
Where do you get valid scientific evidence for the origin of man and the planet he lives on? All you can do is theorize, based upon valid fact possibly, but still only theory. These things are presented as indisputable simply because you can't prove it DIDN'T happen the way it is stated to have happened. Im sorry, but thats just not science.
Ya know? Thats exactly what the catholic church used to say, and still say, about their doctrines as well. You see where free thinking has brought them? To imperialize over a topic of this sort is nothing more than a ploy of control. "R E L I G I O N"
"You need to get together with Jan and discuss the meaning of the word religion. Below, for your benefit, are a couple of dictionary excerpts. As you will note, the belief in God(s) and/or the supernatural are central to the definition of religion. The theory of evolution makes no mention of God(s) or the supernatural. Neither positive nor negative ones.
religion n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
religion
\Re*li"gion\, n. [F., from L. religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.] 1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers."
Thanks....but your sidestepping the issue again. This does not in any way invalidtae my point.
I believe you are referring to the bible? According to the bible, the earth was here in exsistance, prior to the Genesis account.
"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Seems to me to be rather explicit but I will entertain your idea. Please cite your reference."
This is becoming a very deep conversation. Well if you read the second verse, right after the one you quoted, you will see that there was a time when the earth was "without form and void." And is seems to come AFTER verse 1. I don't know, but there could have been a lot happen in the mean time. And if I was to say that the Dinosaurs lived during that time, you could neither refute me nor could I actually prove i was right. But it does SOUND good huh?
Here we have the evolutionists research tactics. Assume they know the what the entire person looked like based upon a bone fragment.
"Scientists do make assumptions. However, when they do so they must state that they are making an assumption and must provide evidence that supports the assumption.
"To address your example: Bone fragments can often provide evidence as to the rest of the skeleton."
Not the kind of detail that is reported in many of the evolutionary contrivances. And certainly, if it really were as accurate as all that, the missing link would not still be missing.
"Forensic science and anthropology use these methods on a daily basis to identify victims from partial, sometimes miniscule, pieces of evidence."
Of course.....but I think forensic science has had as many successes as failures. And there other evidences which may substantiate something even as recent as what forensic science might delve into. But the massive failures of the evolutionary contrivances, from a single bone which in many cases has been proven NOT to be what it was thought to be (or stated to be) in the first place? If forensics had had such problems I doubt it would be as respected as it is today. Yet the evolutionary juggernaut rolls marrily along.
Your tools are simply hypothoses (hyothosi?) WHATEVER! Which are based upon years and years of the same kind of "conjecture". No less so, and certainly no more convincing. It simply has a new coat of paint which the religious community has been unable, or perhaps unwilling to apply.
"Hypotheses. Scientific hypotheses are often based upon conjecture and assumption. They are also defined in a formal manner so as to make them testable and refutable."
Refutable is undoubtedly the correct term for it. That is not the question. The question is why, when so many DO refute it, they are dismissed and accused of having simply a "religious bias"? And, to restate my position, for reasons that seem very hypocritical considering that the "facts" which support evolution simply do not draw a complete picture. Its an idea, and its a good one, but it is still just an alternative to the creation model. And CERTAINLY no more complete.
"Experimentation, prediction, verification with known facts, etc. are then applied to find whether the hypothesis can "survive" (i.e. does it adequately explain those facts). It's conjectures and assumption must be tested and validated."
Yes, and in the mean time, it is plastered all over the college and high school text books and presented as, if not at least taken as, "fact" until it is finally refuted ONCE AGAIN and the next failed theory comes along to replace it. I understand that all this is necessary for science to thrive. And I agree that it is certainly legitimate as such. But this, again, sidesteps my point.
"As the hypothesis is proven to match the facts it will be increasingly accepted to be a valid scientific theory. As the theory continues to build evidence it is considered stronger and gains more and more acceptance. Eventually, some few theories become accepted as Laws."
Yes but there are theories about the evolution of man that have hung on for literally a century or more. Refuted? No. Refutable? Hardly. Just filler. Because if they take them away, it becomes less and less likely. If that is indeed possible to imagine.
"Please note that at any time, any single, repeatable, testable, fact that directly contradicts the theory will invalidate that theory. The theory may then be modified in order to explain a contradiction but it must then still explain, in it's modified form, all the previous facts."
And as I said, in the mean time, we use them in the schools as a little carrot on a stick. Just to keep em interested.
"Also note that the facts it must explain must be relevant to the formal proposition of the theory (e.g. Proof of God would not invalidate the theory of evolution). Evolution stands on it's own proofs."
Of course, but this is all really irrelevent to my point. I understand the goals and the processes of legitimate science. This is why I say that evolution is a religion and not legitimate science at all.
"Likewise disproof of any particular "fact" does not invalidate the theory (e.g. Proof that the Piltdown man was a hoax). All it does is disprove the "fact"."
Ah I see, what your saying here in effect is that evolution cannot be disproven, therefore it is true. Sounds like religious talk to me.
"In other words to disprove evolution you must disprove every piece of supporting evidence, not just a few hoaxes or errors that slipped through the cracks."
A "few" hoaxes? A "few" errors? Try an entire list going back for a century. Besides how many of these hoaxes and errors shall we tollerate just for the sake allowing a belief system to permeate our daily lives? Our schools? Why should such a thing be given any attention? There are many reasons, but they have little to do with evolutions "evidence".
Originally posted by Raithere
You need to get together with Jan and discuss the meaning of the word religion.
religion n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
That describes religion in the same way as saying a car is a metal box with windows made of glass.
That description had to have been made by someone who is not 'religous,' but has the ability to explain what he/she sees with his/hers eyes.
I can understand that some people who are religous, fit purley into that description, but that is not the real religion as descibed in bona-scriptures or by sages, past or present.
religion
\Re*li"gion\, n. [F., from L. religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.] 1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.
Doing something religously, does not nesaccerily mean you are acting in accordance with religion.
For example some of the proffessed atheists on this board, express their atheistic beliefs 'religously.'
Anywayz sorry to interupt this very intersting converstion.
Love.
Jan Ardena.
Richie_LaMontre
Registered Member
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Originally posted by Raithere
You need to get together with Jan and discuss the meaning of the word religion.
"religion n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."
Is this not what evolution attempts to be? Is this not what science is to the evolutionist? I say it is.
" b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."
This is a perfect description of what evolution has become. It may not be "personal" as in a "personal creator", but it sure carries the rest of that description well. And "worship" is a VERY relative term.
"That describes religion in the same way as saying a car is a metal box with windows made of glass."
How so? Religion is a man made institution/concept, in any definition.
"That description had to have been made by someone who is not 'religous,' but has the ability to explain what he/she sees with his/hers eyes."
Is this not what religion does as well? It is an attempt to rationalize the world around you and take some kind of control over it.
"I can understand that some people who are religous, fit purley into that description, but that is not the real religion as descibed in bona-scriptures or by sages, past or present."
Religion is always described in different ways by those who are the adherants of whatever denomination/belief system you might refer to. This is not surprizing. It is all rooted in same desire to understand the worl around you and relate it to yourself and others some form that is palatable. (palatability being another very relative term.)
"religion
\Re*li"gion\, n. [F., from L. religio; cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein to heed, have a care. Cf. Neglect.]
1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due;"
The evolutionists god is "random selection"....chance. And they do homage to him(it). They glorify it in every aspect of their writings and in every nuance of the evolutionary theory. It is the random roll of the dice to which they give all the glory for their very existence.
"the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life;"
Does not your belief effect your "conduct of life"? Is not a baby in the womb just a random blob of jelly to the evolutionist? I mean there are so many spiritual implications carefully couched within evolutionary theory. Denied vehemently by its adherants? Yes. But none-the-less glaringly appearant.
"a system of faith"
Does not the evolutionist have faith? It takes great faith, it would seem to me, to continue to espous such a failed system.
"and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.
Doing something religously, does not nesaccerily mean you are acting in accordance with religion."
You are talking denominations and practices, I am talking concept and dogma.
"For example some of the proffessed atheists on this board, express their atheistic beliefs 'religously.'"
I understand your point. And truely atheists have a "religion" even if they refuse to see it that way. But at least, an atheist will admit, they COULD be wrong and certainly would never press their belief on others against their will. (perhaps you know some exceptions?
"Anywayz sorry to interupt this very intersting converstion.
Hey, the more the merrier.