|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: No, the only thing that we're beginning to understand is the true depth of your misunderstanding about science. Science studies the past by examining the evidence left behind. You are free to discount scientific study of the past if it disagrees with your minority religious view, that's your right. You are also free to believe that if an event cannot be observed real time, it can't be studied scientifically. The good thing is that your believing it won't stop science from studying it. It will just interfere with your ability to learn. So long as you don't try to prevent others from learning, you're the only one who suffers there. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: I am quite confident that the only people who agree with what you're saying will be those who share your unusual reading of the bible. That fact ought to give you pause to consider whether you are wrong, but I fear that, perversely, it will only reinforce your ideas. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: No, but some do say that they don't believe in such a god. But also, many "evolutionists" believe in the same creator god that you do. The difference is that they believe as a matter of faith, while at the same time understanding and believing what science says about how god works. What's the difference between a scientist and a creo? A scientist is able to understand both religion and science and synthesize the two into a consistent world view. A creo isn't. What conclusion should we draw from the fact that many scientists who believe in religion also believe that the ToE is scientific, but only those who hold a particular religious view think the ToE isn't scientific and creationism is? Edited by subbie, : Ooops. Edited by subbie, : Tweek Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: This particular forum is a science forum. Any scientific evidence to support these claims? Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Nothing in science is ever proven. If that's your standard, then nothing is science. However, the ToE has been tested as fully as any other scientific theory, I repeat, as fully tested as any other scientific theory. There is no description that you can provide of science as it is actually done by scientists in the real world that would exclude the ToE. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
As I see it, John has two choices.
He can assume that he knows everything, refuse to ask any questions or listen to what anyone says, and simply keep parroting the same errors he's already made. He can conclude that he might be mistaken, consider the things we're telling him, and think about revising some of his conclusions. I'm willing to make book on which choice he'll go with. Anyone wanna bet on the second option? Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
What part of "science isn't about proving" do you not understand?
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The mere fact that you are unable to understand that science isn't about proving tells me that there's little point in trying to explain anything to you.
Science is not about proof because all of science is tentative. There is absolutely nothing that science has discovered that may not be completely discarded tomorrow if new evidence is found disproving what science previously understood to be true. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
You know, Chuckles, you're having enough trouble responding to what people actually say. You're not doing yourself any favors by responding to things people haven't said.
I never said I want to live in a world where there are no truths or absolutes, that's your own prejudice sneaking into your reading. In fact, I happen to believe that there probably are truths and absolutes in the natural world. What I said was that anything that science concludes is tentatively held. Science may well have stumbled upon accurate truths about the real world. My point is that we don't know, and will never know, because there's always the possibility that some new discovery will be made that will throw the whole works into the dustbin of history. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: From a scientific point of view, nothing will ever positively convince me of that. I've made the point repeatedly that everything in science is tentative. If you don't understand that point by now, I can only assume that you are intellectually incapable of understanding it. However, I am about as certain as one can be within the context of science that there are regularities that can be found in nature that describe much of what we see in nature.
quote: As far as the spiritual world is concerned, you'd have to start with at least a scintilla of verifiable evidence that any such world exists before we can even begin thinking about absolute truths. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
This is a science forum. Do you have any verifiable evidence of the accuracy of anything you have said in this thread?
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: I'm going to take this statement together with your lack of a response to my request for evidence as a tacit admission that only those who share your religious beliefs will find anything of value in what you say. Naturally, this is of limited use in the arena of science. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: But you haven't explained how you know that this discovery won't be disproven tomorrow by a new discovery.
quote: Yes. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: If that's true, then stop dragging them into this thread, fer crying out loud.
quote:My emphasis. Well, those who know the difference between science and religion certainly do. But, those who know what science is and how science works do understand that science allows us to come to reliable conclusions about the world, and that those conclusions include the fact that evolution occurs, and that the ToE explains how evolution takes place quite well. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Very high degree of accuracy? Certainly. Impossible that it won't be disproven tomorrow? I'm certain that just about everyone here would agree that this is possible, although quite unlikely. The point is not how likely it is that that will happen, but that it is possible. That's why all of science is tentative, and science never "proves" anything.
quote: The Yes was a link. Click on it to provide the answer to your question. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024