Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 102 of 230 (654218)
02-28-2012 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by jchardy
02-28-2012 3:19 AM


Re: I'M NOT SO SURE!
quote:
They discussed everything and anything the kids wanted to bring up who were bright enough to bring them up.
  —jchardy
When I was at school, in physics classes only physics was discussed. In chemistry classes, only chemistry was discussed. In biology classes, only biology was discussed.
My teachers were bright enough to know that even the brightest kids didn't know much about these subjects. Those kids were there to get an education.
These teachers were also bright enough to know that they, themselves, didn't know enough to tell all those professional physisists, chemists and biologists that they all are wrong about everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jchardy, posted 02-28-2012 3:19 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 139 of 230 (654968)
03-06-2012 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by jchardy
03-05-2012 9:32 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:
1. Everyone has a right to believe what they wish to believe, ....
Yes, everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe.
However, nobody has the right to teach sham science as "science". Only science should be taught as science.
Religious beliefs should not be taught as "science". Therefore no accommodation of religious beliefs in science classes.
The fraudulence of creationists pretending that Intelligent Design is "science" should be exposed for what it is: dishonesty. That's it. Pseudo "science" should not be taught in science classes. You, jchardy, are a victim of their dishonesty; you believe their deception.
Furthermore, the only thing to understand about Intelligent Design is that it is not science. It is religion dressed up as "science". They don't tell the truth by keeping on pretending to lay people that they do "science". It isn't . Nothing more to understand about that.
Edited by Pressie, : Added last paragraph
Edited by Pressie, : Edited at request of moderator
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jchardy, posted 03-05-2012 9:32 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 2:12 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 145 of 230 (655078)
03-07-2012 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jchardy
03-07-2012 12:48 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
jchardy writes:
.....But those who have a faith-based belief ensconced in their final results keep that belief well hidden, because should they discuss their interpretations openly, they would be maligned and ostracized and their work ignored or denied publication no matter how valid because there is such an incredibly strong bias against such scientists.......
Ah, the global conspiracy against creation "scientists". Poor, oppressed little people; these faith-based "scientists" are.
Has it ever occurred to you that the simple reason creation "scientists" don't often get published is the fact they don't normally follow the scientific method; and if they do, they usually do really, really bad science? I could provide you with quite a few examples if you're interested.
Edited by Pressie, : Added sentence
Edited by Pressie, : Added sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jchardy, posted 03-07-2012 12:48 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 147 of 230 (655083)
03-07-2012 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by jchardy
03-05-2012 9:32 PM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy
I don't understand much of what you're trying to say, but I completely disagree in some of the instances I do understand. For example, your point 3:
jchardy writes:
3. Religious, political and scientific concepts are mutually toxic to one another....
I disagree. They should compliment each other. You only see, for example science, toxic to religion because science disproves a literal interpretation of your holy book, together with providing strong evidence that that your religion is based on wishful thinking. The lack of empirical, verifiable evidence for you surviving your death is one example. Another one is the evidence that organisms always died and death did not start after somebody was tricked into eating from some tree.
jchardy writes:
... and should NOT be mixed except on an individual non-institutional basis....
I disagree. For example, allegations that prayer heals people should be investigated. This should be tested rigorously, as it could improve conditions for humanity if true. Unfortunately for you, the studies done so far indicate that people being prayed for are just as likely to die as people not being prayed for.
jchardy writes:
... I.e., it’s OK to express a bias in one direction or the other, but there is no certitude== not really.
I disagree. For example, there is a very high degree of certainty that Antartica is (tomorrow we could say was) situated in the Southern Hemisphere on the Seventh day of March, 2012. This is deducted through a variety of lines of empirical, verifiable evidence for Antartica existing in the first place, as well as being situated where it is in the second place. Empirical, verifiable evidence for a phenonema can provide a very high degree of certainty. Certitude.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed the last few sentences
Edited by Pressie, : Changed a few sentences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jchardy, posted 03-05-2012 9:32 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(4)
Message 153 of 230 (655103)
03-07-2012 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Percy
03-07-2012 10:38 AM


Re: PIVOTAL QUESTION FOR ALL- jch
I found that remark by jchardy very disrespectful towards a lot of people, too. Along with those other remarks about some scientists being victims of some conspiracy by everyone else (including me). I think his remarks defeat the purpose of his thread.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 03-07-2012 10:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 164 of 230 (655283)
03-09-2012 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by jchardy
03-09-2012 2:16 AM


Re: purpose in science
jchardy writes:
My point is that there are plausible means by which an agent (far beyond our understanding) might manipulate the evolution both of the physical universe and of life and its evolution.
Could you be so kind as to provide the following: 1) define what you mean by such an "agent"; 2) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of said agent; 3) provide a definition of what you mean by "plausible means" in this instance; 4) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for the existence of those "plausible means"; 5) provide evidence that there is anything else but our "physical universe" and could influence it; 6) define what you mean by "manipulated" in this instance;7) provide empirical, verifiable evidence for this manipulation?
Without this the sentence surely doesn't have much meaning. You might as well have said:
"My point is that there are kdkdnfndfjldslwelwe by which an ahsbdkjrytgfdh%* (far beyond our understanding) might sjdjdldlrreujewl the evolution both of the physical universe and of life and it's evolution".
Edited by Pressie, : Changed last sentence
Edited by Pressie, : Spelling and changed a sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 2:16 AM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by jchardy, posted 03-09-2012 5:15 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024