|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two types of science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Hi marc9000, Do you believe in the principal of falsification of a theory? Sure, but I'd have to see how it's defined - if there's any trickiness involved in just what the principle of falsification is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
What puzzles me is that most YECs allow for an age of up to 10,000 years.
In fact, while believing in 7,000 to 10,000 years, they are willing to grasp at "evidences" of millions of years, such as in the tired old "sea salt" PRATT. When a creationist presented that PRATT and I pointed out that millions of years still contradicted his YEC position, his response was "Just so long as it's not BILLIONS of years as science says that it is!" IOW, their goal is not to develop and present a coherent model for the earth's age, but rather solely to oppose science and to try to discredit science in any way possible. They're not trying to show that they are right, but only that science is wrong. And my personal opinion about them claiming 10,000 years instead of the circa 6,000 that their misinterpretation of the Bible demands is because of the central deception of "creation science", their game of "Hide the Bible" in which they lie that their opposition to evolution is based "solely on scientific evidences and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or the Bible." If they presented a number that was too close to their biblical chronology then that would be a dead give-away, so they rounded it up to 10,000. They could just as easily taken it to a million or even ten million, just so long as it said that science is wrong. Well, that's my own opinion on that question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
marc9000 writes: The evidence is in the fact that there is so much metaphysical science going on in universities and even high school textbooks today. Could you give us some examples please? Here is a link about a recent conflict going on in Kansas, that seems to be somewhat typical of other states from recent times. (From the link), one side says;
quote: and the other side says;
quote: These are typical statements from these types of cases, we all know which sides we're on, and this thread isn't really about a lot of detail about that discussion. But the fact is, these conflicts have been going on, are going on, and will continue to go on. The fact that the scientific community and 99% of its followers are ALWAYS militantly on one side should at least initiate some discussion about the possibility that two types of science exist, and there may be evidence that double standards exist in the scientific community. Here's how Conservapedia describes the National Center for Science Education;
quote: The NCSE has at least some unopposed CONTROL of what's being taught as science in public schools. I realize that liberal atheists always consider conservapedia to be wrong. But liberal atheists aren't always automatically right. Barbara Forrest, an atheist activist, serves on the NCSE's board of directors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Public opinion has no role in science. Unless science is funded by the public. When I first started posting here 4 years ago, you actually used to lock horns with other naturalists a little bit, concerning liberal politics, though you never seemed to last long against them. You seem to be completely over that now, have you been de-programed? Though it's largely forgotten today due to lack of education, the 10th amendment still exists. Do you know what it says about public opinion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
I guess you never did understand what Dawkins meant by "selfish genes." But thanks for the laughs. I know what Dawkins says about the "blind, pitiless indifference" of nature, the obvious beliefs of naturalists that human emotions are not scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
You don't care whether scientists are atheists or not. In reality, you only care that they come up with conclusions that dispute your religious beliefs. It's this straw man, this lie, that probably more than anything else, inspires millions of people all across the U.S. to take issue with what the science education establishment is doing. Christians in the U.S. who question science don't want their own religious rituals established in science, they want to get the atheism out. If they could, they'd vote to make sure atheist activists like Barbara Forrest weren't members of anything that makes decisions about what their children will be taught.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact. The book of Genesis has been confirmed repeatedly by many more independent and competent observers than anything concerning Darwinism.
quote: Theory! That's what we use to organize and explain facts! Your answer makes no sense. What makes more sense of what facts are useful is a parallel of what the above paragraph states; A correct catalogue of the size and shape of every star in the Milky Way galaxy may be factually true, but it will not be as useful as knowing that if we don’t quit wasting time and energy doing this type of exploration, the U.S. may find itself in so much debt that its infrastructure completely collapses.
So, to answer your question about which facts are true and which are useful--we don't use either term in science. Evidence shows that you do, which facts are true and which facts are useful to promote atheism. Edited by marc9000, : No reason given. Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just curious marc9000
Here is a link about a recent conflict going on in Kansas, that seems to be somewhat typical of other states from recent times. That seems to be a Christian group attacking school education programs, rather than some atheist agenda\conspiracy attacking Christians.
Message 51: ... Christians in the U.S. who question science don't want their own religious rituals established in science, they want to get the atheism out. Ah, so it would be okay to use the buddhist approach: all is illusion. Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
These are typical statements from these types of cases, we all know which sides we're on, and this thread isn't really about a lot of detail about that discussion. But the fact is, these conflicts have been going on, are going on, and will continue to go on. The fact that the scientific community and 99% of its followers are ALWAYS militantly on one side should at least initiate some discussion about the possibility that two types of science exist, and there may be evidence that double standards exist in the scientific community. What it actually suggests is that since scientists, who know about science, think that creationism is unscientific shit, it probably is unscientific shit. Where did you pull your bizarre non sequitur from?
Here's how Conservapedia describes the National Center for Science Education; And how is it described by the crazy man in the vomit-stained coat who stands outside Walmart and shouts gibberish at passers-by?
The NCSE has at least some unopposed CONTROL of what's being taught as science in public schools. Er, no. 'Cos of them not having any control over what's being taught as science in public schools, and 'cos of them not being unopposed. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Unless science is funded by the public. Even then, it only decides what questions should be studied using public money. It doesn't decide what the scientific method is or what the answer should be to the questions. (People who want to believe unscientific crap can of course do that for free.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
marc9000 writes: Coyote writes: Public opinion has no role in science. Unless science is funded by the public. The public, through their representatives, can choose what types of projects to fund with public funds, but they can't dictate the results. There is no role for public opinion there. This is a lesson creationists have yet to learn.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's this straw man, this lie, that probably more than anything else, inspires millions of people all across the U.S. to take issue with what the science education establishment is doing. Christians in the U.S. who question science don't want their own religious rituals established in science, they want to get the atheism out. Splendid. Pop the champagne! You've won!
If they could, they'd vote to make sure atheist activists like Barbara Forrest weren't members of anything that makes decisions about what their children will be taught. And you won that one too! Hurrah! --- I was looking forward to this thread being about the "two types of science" mentioned in the OP. I'm happy mocking you on other subjects, don't get me wrong, but it's not as interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
Then it is a good thing that no one, except creationists looking for a straw man, posits that DNA, the flagellum or any other biologic object just "fell" together by any process at all. "Any process at all", including random mutation and natural selection? As far as I know, evolutionists will grudgingly admit that nature cannot have a purpose, and cannot plan for future function. Without purpose and a plan, anything complex had to have come together by pure randomness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"Any process at all", including random mutation and natural selection? Those are indeed not processes by which things fall together. They're actually part of a quite different process known as evolution.
As far as I know, evolutionists will grudgingly admit that nature cannot have a purpose, and cannot plan for future function. And you are of course wrong --- there is nothing remotely "grudging" about the way that they insist on this obvious fact; and insisting vociferously on something is kind of the opposite of "admitting" it.
Without purpose and a plan, anything complex had to have come together by pure randomness. Don't be silly. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I know what Dawkins says about the "blind, pitiless indifference" of nature, the obvious beliefs of naturalists that human emotions are not scientific. If that was an attempt to defend the nonsense you were talking about "selfish genes", it failed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
So, an individual says that science has weakened the hold of religion and describes that as a good thing. He does not suggest that weakening the hold of religion is or even should be a goal of science. He has no more than his prestige to support him - and there are many religious scientists who would oppose him. So your evidence of any "problem" in science is pretty damn weak. As I said, he probably said it several times, turns out he did. Here's what he said at another time, in its complete context;
quote: As we can clearly see, he intends for it to be an on-going process. There's evidence that it is. Do you have evidence of any mainstream scientists who have taken any notable action to oppose his position on this?
Johnson's scientific credentials are hardly relevant His position as the leader of the Intelligent Design movement at that time would seem rather more important. Also the fact that the Wedge Document was written as an official document of the branch of the Discovery Institute that is the ore of the ID movement, describing it's aims. If anyone interested in Intelligent Design has to be tied to the Wedge Document and the Discovery Institute, does it not logically follow that anyone interested in evolution must also be tied to Darwin, Huxley, and Herbert Spencer? If not, why not? Because ID is not as old as Darwin’s following? Evolution has moved on from much of Darwin's ideas (about the simplest forms of life for example) why is ID not permitted to equally move on from the Wedge Document?
I guess that - just like the last time a creationist raised the idea of "metaphysical science" here - it really is just a code for "science creationists refuse to accept." No, it's a code for "a political establishment of atheism", something forbidden by U.S. foundings every bit as much, if not more, than "separation of church and state".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024