Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 6:54 AM
23 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,819 Year: 4,856/19,786 Month: 978/873 Week: 334/376 Day: 11/116 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   assistance needed
outblaze
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 14 (17777)
09-19-2002 10:30 AM


pleassssssse, can any of you help this poster :

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=c89b7e5a94419b8be60033a77b739c30&threadid=46664&pagenumber=2

Originally posted by Martinm
What I, and most scientists, do object to is people trying to replace science with religion. Religion per se is not a problem. If you want to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago, that's your business. Expecting it to be taught in science class, or given any credence by the scientific community is another matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saint_Dirtbag responded quite well, but I want to add this. I agree with you creationism is a religous belife. But no more so than evolution.

One definition for religion is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

And this is from the National Science Teachers Association site (so its not a Christian site but a secular science site)

"What is the ``scientific method''?
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. "

To me, the last paragraph should be step 6...

So, evolution meets steps 1-3, but fails on 4-6. It is not testable, not reproduceable, and not verifiable. In fact, if we really are honest, it also fails on step 1 as it is not observable. Different species being here is, but evolution is not. So evolution does not fit any of secular science's requirements outside of being a hypothesis. So its not science.

But it SURE fits the definition of religion to a T.

True and pure science would say this - The earth is older than we are. There have been animals alive longer than we ourselves. Some of these animals, to our knowledge, are not alive any longer. Some of these animals have died and their bones have been burried and fossilized.

That's it. Anything more adds untestable, unreproduceable, unverifiable religously held belifes to the facts. The Bible becomes MORE reliable than anything else because science is making guesses, but God was actually THERE when it happened to tell us how it happened.

Bless...ArtS


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Mammuthus, posted 09-19-2002 1:09 PM outblaze has not yet responded
 Message 3 by nos482, posted 09-19-2002 2:49 PM outblaze has not yet responded
 Message 4 by octipice, posted 09-21-2002 5:52 PM outblaze has not yet responded
 Message 5 by edge, posted 09-21-2002 6:32 PM outblaze has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 09-22-2002 4:03 AM outblaze has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 2 of 14 (17781)
09-19-2002 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by outblaze
09-19-2002 10:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by outblaze:
pleassssssse, can any of you help this poster :

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=c89b7e5a94419b8be60033a77b739c30&threadid=46664&pagenumber=2

Originally posted by Martinm
What I, and most scientists, do object to is people trying to replace science with religion. Religion per se is not a problem. If you want to believe that the world was created 6000 years ago, that's your business. Expecting it to be taught in science class, or given any credence by the scientific community is another matter.


*****************************************************************

Looks like this poster is the only one with a functional brain on the Rapture forum..LOL!!!!

***************************************
"What is the ``scientific method''?
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. "

To me, the last paragraph should be step 6...

So, evolution meets steps 1-3, but fails on 4-6. It is not testable, not reproduceable, and not verifiable. In fact, if we really are honest, it also fails on step 1 as it is not observable. Different species being here is, but evolution is not. So evolution does not fit any of secular science's requirements outside of being a hypothesis. So its not science.

But it SURE fits the definition of religion to a T.
*****************************

Only if you ignore thousands of reproducible studies in diverse fields such as paleontology, developmental biology, and molecular biology. That you cannot understand how evolution is a testable hypothesis is a clear indicator that an education beyond the kindergarten level is required.

------------------------------------------

True and pure science would say this - The earth is older than we are. There have been animals alive longer than we ourselves. Some of these animals, to our knowledge, are not alive any longer. Some of these animals have died and their bones have been burried and fossilized.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ok, define true and pure science since it is clear you don't know what science is in the first place
-------------------------------

That's it. Anything more adds untestable, unreproduceable, unverifiable religously held belifes to the facts. The Bible becomes MORE reliable than anything else because science is making guesses, but God was actually THERE when it happened to tell us how it happened.

Bless...ArtS
**********************************

And now you are going to explain how this fits with the scientific method you claim evolution fails? Since god does not exist...she could not have been anywhere....

1. Observe some aspect of the universe (can't observe god, test FAILED)
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.(Since cant do 1 this doesnt work either..so develop silly myth)
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. (hypothesis...there is a god...predictions..NONE)
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.(Can't test for existence of god)
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. (Nothing but discrepancies between the bible and the natural world)
6. Realize that creationism is stupid but must cling to faith or other dumb dumbs won't give me beer
7. Solution. Have brain removed and take heavy drugs and then creationism suddenly makes sense again.
8. Post nonesense on boards like the Rapture forum
9. Feel happy since ignorance is bliss


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by outblaze, posted 09-19-2002 10:30 AM outblaze has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 14 (17782)
09-19-2002 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by outblaze
09-19-2002 10:30 AM


Wrong, Evolution is no more a religion than gravity is. They are both "Just a theory".

You don't understand what science is and how it works.

Religion:

1. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny

2. Institution to express belief in a divine power

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-19-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by outblaze, posted 09-19-2002 10:30 AM outblaze has not yet responded

  
octipice
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 14 (17939)
09-21-2002 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by outblaze
09-19-2002 10:30 AM


The real difference between evolution and religion is whether or not it can be tested. Religion cannot ever be tested, because it is based on concepts that are inherently unprovable. However, evolution can be is based on concepts that can be tested and proven. The practical difference is that evolution is difficult to test, whereas religion is impossible to test.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by outblaze, posted 09-19-2002 10:30 AM outblaze has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4508
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.8


Message 5 of 14 (17940)
09-21-2002 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by outblaze
09-19-2002 10:30 AM


Quote from outblaze:
quote:
One definition for religion is "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

So, this is one definition? Hmm, why did you choose this one? What do the others say?

Why do you say this fits evolution? Is evolution a cause? No. Is it a principle? Yes. Is it an activity? I don't think so. Is it pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion? Not at all.

Why do you seem to think it is? Ah, I see, you are confused between how you view origins with how scientists view origins. Just because you pursue your religion with zeal, you think that evolutionists do the same with evolution. They don't.

Does this help clear things up for you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by outblaze, posted 09-19-2002 10:30 AM outblaze has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by nos482, posted 09-21-2002 7:40 PM edge has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 14 (17942)
09-21-2002 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by edge
09-21-2002 6:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by edge:

So, this is one definition? Hmm, why did you choose this one? What do the others say?

Why do you say this fits evolution? Is evolution a cause? No. Is it a principle? Yes. Is it an activity? I don't think so. Is it pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion? Not at all.

Why do you seem to think it is? Ah, I see, you are confused between how you view origins with how scientists view origins. Just because you pursue your religion with zeal, you think that evolutionists do the same with evolution. They don't.

Does this help clear things up for you?


Exactly. Evolution continues wheither we actively "spread the word" or not. God disappears once no one speaks of him/her/it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by edge, posted 09-21-2002 6:32 PM edge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 10-20-2002 5:48 PM nos482 has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3976 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 7 of 14 (17958)
09-22-2002 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by outblaze
09-19-2002 10:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by outblaze:
So, evolution meets steps 1-3, but fails on 4-6. It is not testable, not reproduceable, and not verifiable. In fact, if we really are honest, it also fails on step 1 as it is not observable. Different species being here is, but evolution is not. So evolution does not fit any of secular science's requirements outside of being a hypothesis. So its not science.

But it SURE fits the definition of religion to a T.

True and pure science would say this - The earth is older than we are. There have been animals alive longer than we ourselves. Some of these animals, to our knowledge, are not alive any longer. Some of these animals have died and their bones have been burried and fossilized.

That's it. Anything more adds untestable, unreproduceable, unverifiable religously held belifes to the facts.


There are several significant errors and misunderstandings in your interpretation of what science is.

1. Most of science does not depend on direct observation. It is based on testing predictions that derive logically from hypotheses. We certainly don't know the structure of the atom or the mechanism of gravity by direct observation.

2. The processes and mechanisms driving evolutionary change (such as natural selection in all its forms, genetic drift, random mutation) CAN and HAVE BEEN observed both in the lab and in the wild. It is undisputable fact that evolution has occurred. Many of the mechanisms and processes are also facts - they HAVE been directly observed. There is no "faith" involved. Whereas details of the mode and tempo of evolution (the theory part) may be disputed - and is, often acrimoniously among scientists - the fact of evolution is not in doubt.

3. Science is manifestly NOT simply a catalog of phenomena. Although that does constitute a part of science - an important part, in fact, otherwise there would be no observations upon which to base hypotheses - it is not the only or even the most important aspect of scientific endeavor. I have certainly done enough baseline studies and species catalogs to attest to this! However, science also seeks to provide explanations for why a particular phenomenon occurs. Science consists of posing testable, falsifiable hypotheses; making predictions about what is not yet known; performing critical experiments or observations that can disprove certain alternatives and lend support to others; seeking explanations; and subjecting ideas to the rather critical examination of other scientists. This epistemology or "way of knowing" is the direct antithesis of religion and faith, which rely on blind, dogmatic adherence to the traditional tenets of their belief.

Evolutionary hypotheses CAN be tested. Based on the predictions made observations or data can be accumulated that falsify the ideas. No science, including evolutionary biology, relies on immutable Truth (tm). Every science consists of provisionally accepted hypotheses. Progress in science - every science - consists of challenging established views with new ideas and experiments. Can ANY religion or belief system even come close to saying the same?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by outblaze, posted 09-19-2002 10:30 AM outblaze has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3709
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 8 of 14 (17989)
09-23-2002 12:27 AM


Topic moved from "Evolution" to "Is It Science?" forum.

Adminnemooseus


    
nator
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 9 of 14 (20322)
10-20-2002 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by nos482
09-21-2002 7:40 PM


quote:

Exactly. Evolution continues wheither we actively "spread the word" or not. God disappears once no one speaks of him/her/it.

Actually, you don't know if God disappears or not.

Nobody does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by nos482, posted 09-21-2002 7:40 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by nos482, posted 10-20-2002 7:59 PM nator has responded

    
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 14 (20332)
10-20-2002 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nator
10-20-2002 5:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:

Exactly. Evolution continues wheither we actively "spread the word" or not. God disappears once no one speaks of him/her/it.

Actually, you don't know if God disappears or not.

Nobody does.


Of course we do since god only exists in the belief of others.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nator, posted 10-20-2002 5:48 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:50 PM nos482 has responded
 Message 12 by nator, posted 10-22-2002 11:09 AM nos482 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1927 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 11 of 14 (20336)
10-20-2002 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by nos482
10-20-2002 7:59 PM


[QUOTE][B]Of course we do since god only exists in the belief of others.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

How do you know?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nos482, posted 10-20-2002 7:59 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by nos482, posted 10-22-2002 11:52 AM gene90 has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 12 of 14 (20496)
10-22-2002 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by nos482
10-20-2002 7:59 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:

Exactly. Evolution continues wheither we actively "spread the word" or not. God disappears once no one speaks of him/her/it.

Actually, you don't know if God disappears or not.

Nobody does.


Of course we do since god only exists in the belief of others.


You don't know that at all.

Every human concept of God/gods could be incorrect, but this does not disprove the existence of God/gods.

It simply means that we don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by nos482, posted 10-20-2002 7:59 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nos482, posted 10-22-2002 12:20 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 14 (20499)
10-22-2002 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by gene90
10-20-2002 8:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]Of course we do since god only exists in the belief of others.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

How do you know?


From examples like you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:50 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 14 (20500)
10-22-2002 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by nator
10-22-2002 11:09 AM


Originally posted by schrafinator:

You don't know that at all.

Every human concept of God/gods could be incorrect, but this does not disprove the existence of God/gods.

It simply means that we don't know.

And because we don't know, all beliefs of a god or gods are in the beliefs only as in speculations. It is totally unknowable about the existence of a creator of all. Everything else is just a choice to believe in something without any real knowledge. If their beliefs were true than there wouldn't be any real doubt because it would be perfectly obvious to everyone since their "god" would be able to prove its existence without having to use such nonsens as faith only. Having faith in the existence of a Big Blue Banana is no different and just as valid as a belief in a god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nator, posted 10-22-2002 11:09 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019