Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 3:23 PM
25 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK, ringo, Taq, xongsmith (6 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,152 Year: 9,188/19,786 Month: 1,610/2,119 Week: 370/576 Day: 45/128 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Author Topic:   Two types of science
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3110
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 106 of 184 (716332)
01-14-2014 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
01-12-2014 7:43 PM


Re: Data Inputs
I always find it amusing when someone who is totally clueless says "You are busted", or 'I busted'.. etc etc etc.

I find that the Kruger-Dunning effect tends to be strong in the people who claim to have Busted someone.

I am sorry, but there seems to be a lack of being able to read and comprehend here, as well as suffering from 'Chip on Shoulder syndrome'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 01-12-2014 7:43 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2014 8:35 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 107 of 184 (716337)
01-14-2014 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by ramoss
01-14-2014 7:54 PM


Re: Data Inputs
I find that the Kruger-Dunning effect tends to be strong in the people who claim to have Busted someone.

Oh snap! You are so busted as an intellectual elitist snob, ramoss

Amazing how well this describes politics in general, the GOP on Bengazi, the budget and 'Bama, and the Tea Party on anything (and I certainly hope they are 'on' something ... ..)


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ramoss, posted 01-14-2014 7:54 PM ramoss has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 108 of 184 (716340)
01-14-2014 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by shalamabobbi
01-12-2014 10:55 PM


Re: falsification
The bolded parts refer to falsification. So, to be considered science an idea has to be falsifiable by definition. So out with creationism and/or ID as science. It's not by definition.

I haven't done any debates in a long time that are directly focused on intelligent design, but when I did, (at another site) it was always a combination of amusing and frustrating at how little evolutionists actually knew about intelligent design. And most of them were doing what evolutionists typically do at forums such as these - parroting what they see coming down from on high at the scientific establishment. Clear evidence of the knee jerk reaction that intelligent design receives from a supposedly "disinterested pursuit of knowledge".

Why does the number of angles matter in falsification. All it requires is one. ID has none, zero angles of falsifiability.

Sure it does. If it could be shown that complex, orderly biological systems like the bacterial flagellum could have been formed by ONE CERTAIN gradual Darwinian process, then ID would be falsified on the secular scientific grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when natural causes can clearly shown to be able to do the job. So far, no one Darwinian process has been clearly constructed by science to form the bacterial flagellum. Evolutionists demand proof that NO Darwinian pathway could have formed it, requiring an impossible, infinite search. ID is actually more falsifiable than evolution.

If the application of the scientific method isn't applicable then there really isn't any other source of knowledge that is going to add anything to our knowledge base of what happened in the past. Chemistry happens based upon the nature of the elements and molecules involved in reactions, the intrinsic forces of nature of matter. Misapplications of probability also result from considering the outcome of evolution to have been "the goal" of the process. Historic writings disagree with each other just like various versions of creation science. You're welcome to pick and choose and believe what you like but it isn't going to be scientific.

Historic writings, creation science, and science. A lot of picking and choosing goes on concerning many scientific disciplines, they were described in this link that was in my message 69. Pseudoscience, junk science, deceptive science, etc. Here's a paragraph from that link;

quote:
Of course, the pursuit of scientific knowledge usually involves elements of intuition and guesswork; experiments do not always test a theory adequately, and experimental results can be incorrectly interpreted or even wrong. In legitimate science, however, these problems tend to be self-correcting, if not by the original researchers themselves, then through the critical scrutiny of the greater scientific community. Critical thinking is an essential element of science.

The self-correcting process works only if there is little or no corruption involved. Critical thinking tells some people this when they note the immediate, knee jerk reaction from the scientific community, regarding Michael Behe's work, and the concept of intelligent design.

More from that link;

quote:
Another term, junk science, is often used to describe scientific theories or data which, while perhaps legitimate in themselves, are believed to be mistakenly used to support an opposing position. There is usually an element of political or ideological bias in the use of the term. Thus the arguments in favor of limiting the use of fossil fuels in order to reduce global warming are often characterized as junk science by those who do not wish to see such restrictions imposed, and who claim that other factors may well be the cause of global warming.

And;

quote:
Fraudulant science and Scientific Misconduct refer to work that is intentionally fabricated or misrepresented for personal (recognition or career-advancement) or commercial (marketing or regulatory) reasons. Suppression of science for political reasons often occurred during the second Bush administration. The tobacco and pharmaceutical industries have been notoriously implicated in the latter category.

Bottom line, picking and choosing goes on all the time in science, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. As this link gleefully points out, it can happen in conservatism, but it can happen in liberalism too. The simple fact is, the public scientific community (in education, politics) has NO prominent conservatives who freely combine their science with conservative political views, but it (the scientific community) has plenty of liberal ones. Everything you and the other decent posters are saying here (excluding the 4 or 5 trolls) would be a lot stronger case if it weren't for the lopsided political views of the scientific community.

You are not a YEC so I assume you refer to evolution rather than the age of the earth. So let's tentatively accept you viewpoint and consider it. We have the creator placing animals upon the earth or fashioning them from the dust, whatever your particular view is, while the continents slowly divide and move about causing the raising of the ocean floor and subsequent changes in the environment. This causes some animals to go extinct. But rather than those which are able to survive evolving into various new forms, you have God coming down again to create new animals and spread them about. As time passes and the environment changes and more extinctions occur God continues to do this again over eons of time. To what end? Why? God could have created the earth in the final desired state and created appropriate animals to inhabit that environment from the start. Faith's world view makes more sense than your own.

Concerning your statement that I bolded, secular demands and questions of God's actions can be demanded by anyone all day, if they reduce God to the status of a human, an earthly ruler etc. Lots of the mainstream U.S. population doesn't consider humans to be superior enough to do that, and most Christian denominations heed the plain text of the Bible about the wisdom of not doing it.

What has happened light years away is visible to the eye so I take it that it is the purported distances you dispute? How old do you take the universe to be marc? You have to answer that before I can comment further.

If there's a such thing as another time dimension, as all of Christianity asserts, then the age of the universe can only be partially addressed. If the scientific community can use it's understanding of an old earth to do things like search for oil, then by all means it should have at it. If only it could stop at that, and not come to the conclusion that one time dimension is all there is to reality, then there would be little conflict about what the scientific community tries to do in education, politics etc. But science won't stop, until it gets to atheism. Then, for the countless things it can't figure out, it gives itself unlimited time to work on it, while not giving public studies of intelligent design any time at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-12-2014 10:55 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2014 9:57 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 01-14-2014 10:07 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 117 by herebedragons, posted 01-14-2014 10:22 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 122 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-15-2014 2:38 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2014 7:15 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 109 of 184 (716341)
01-14-2014 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by TrueCreation
01-13-2014 3:09 AM


I am not sure you fully appreciate the fact that science operates on (tries to say something about) what is unknown, not what is known.

I understand it, since most of them are atheists trying to downplay what God has done, and yes, I don’t much appreciate it.

The collection of things which we can say are known from observation allow us to do science, but these things are not really what scientists are most interested in.

You got that right! Getting rid of religion and taking God's place, political power and money, that's what they're interested in!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by TrueCreation, posted 01-13-2014 3:09 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by TrueCreation, posted 01-15-2014 1:34 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4106
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 110 of 184 (716342)
01-14-2014 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
01-14-2014 3:00 PM


Re: The Army of the Unknowns
And here I thought I was being facetious. Should have known.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2014 3:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2014 7:18 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 111 of 184 (716343)
01-14-2014 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Son Goku
01-13-2014 5:45 AM


Re: Nonsense
So let me understand your reasoning:

It is not okay to use telescopes to study the universe, you need other unspecified instruments, because people were, in your opinion, unfair to intelligent design.

It's "okay" to use them, it's just not okay to come to thorough scientific conclusions about what appears to be discovered with them, to the extent that it's taught as indisputable fact in public science education. Because different standards are applied to their discoveries, compared to the discoveries of intelligent design.

Can you explain to me why telescopes are inadequate in cosmology, without reference to how unfairly some other subject was treated.

I don't think humans are completely capable of smugly making assertions about what's going on thousands, or hundreds of thousands of light years away.

Your reasoning would be equivalent to telling a plumber that he doesn't know what he is doing because somebody was mean to the electrician.

The atheist reasoning that top-down species origination research isn't science, while claiming that colliding galaxies and speculations about billions of light years IS science, would be the equivalent of telling the plumber to GET OUT, kissing the electricians ass and telling him to do his thing and get paid for his work as well as the plumbers, then telling the homeowners that they don't get any plumbing work done, and they're not permitted to do it themselves because it might contribute to global warming. And if they're caught going to the bathroom outside, they're in TROUBLE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Son Goku, posted 01-13-2014 5:45 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2014 9:37 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 161 by Son Goku, posted 01-20-2014 5:13 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 112 of 184 (716345)
01-14-2014 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by marc9000
01-14-2014 9:26 PM


Re: Nonsense
It's "okay" to use them, it's just not okay to come to thorough scientific conclusions about what appears to be discovered with them, to the extent that it's taught as indisputable fact in public science education.

Why is it wrong to draw conclusions based on the evidence?

Because different standards are applied to their discoveries, compared to the discoveries of intelligent design.

If we could see evidence for ID through a telescope --- or by any other means, for that matter --- would you be demanding that we not draw any conclusions from it on the grounds that we can't smell the evidence?

One standard is good enough for me and the scientific community.

I don't think humans are completely capable of smugly making assertions about what's going on thousands, or hundreds of thousands of light years away.

Humans are capable of smugly making assertions about a whole lot of stuff, it's one of the specialties of our species. Astronomers are especially good at it, 'cos of having evidence and being right.

The atheist reasoning that top-down species origination research isn't science, while claiming that colliding galaxies and speculations about billions of light years IS science, would be the equivalent of telling the plumber to GET OUT, kissing the electricians ass and telling him to do his thing and get paid for his work as well as the plumbers, then telling the homeowners that they don't get any plumbing work done, and they're not permitted to do it themselves because it might contribute to global warming. And if they're caught going to the bathroom outside, they're in TROUBLE.

That paragraph needs a bit of work doing on it. Such as setting fire to it, burying its ashes in an unmarked grave at midnight, and writing something else entirely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 9:26 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 113 of 184 (716347)
01-14-2014 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by marc9000
01-14-2014 9:11 PM


Re: falsification
The self-correcting process works only if there is little or no corruption involved. Critical thinking tells some people this when they note the immediate, knee jerk reaction from the scientific community, regarding Michael Behe's work, and the concept of intelligent design.

I see. Scientists look at ID, say it's crap. Therefore, you reason, "corruption" must be involved, or they'd have thought it was superwonderful with extra fantastic on top.

You know every crank thinks that about his pet hypothesis, right? But in fact it usually turns out that it is crap. In this particular case, when even Behe himself can see flaws in his arguments, there's no need to invoke corruption to explain why everyone else with a functioning brain can see 'em too.

---

Here, take a look at this guy. See how dumb those scientists are, telling him how his perpetual motion machine won't work?

Is It That Modern Science Has Followed Peter Pan into Never Never Land?

Have you noticed that the Scientist being turned out by all the major Universities cannot think, cannot solve problems, cannot even bring to bare the appropriate scientific principles?

I have notices it and I wonder what could have caused this effect. Is it the focus of modern education to find answers rather than to solve problems? Is it the focus of today's students to look up answers in text books and the internet to compete and get top marks, rather than to do the problem on their own and learn from their mistakes?

Whatever the reason, it is unfortunate that Universities have lost their focus and value in today's internet world. It would appear that today's Scientists are more concerned with making a name for them selves, even using voodoo science, than reaching an understanding of the issues and problems they are suppose to know so much about. Is this because 21 century Scientists are not properly trained and their ignorance and arrogance create such self delusion that they totally overlook their inadequacies?

Tut, such ignorant, arrogant, self-deluded, inadequate scientists we have. Tsk tsk. Either that he's an idiot, an idea which apparently has yet to cross his mind.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 9:11 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 114 of 184 (716348)
01-14-2014 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by herebedragons
01-13-2014 8:46 AM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
marc9000 writes:

Is there a unified, working model that humans cause global warming?

You have got to be kidding!!!

When I first got involved in this forum, I used to hate it when people would say something to the effect of "Go read a science book." But now I totally understand why people would say this. Someone like you comes on here and wants to discredit the people who have spent their careers learning and studying an issue while knowing nothing about the subject themselves.

Here's what you said in message 37, that I was responding to;

quote:
A lot of creationists and ID proponents claim to have theories about different aspects of their ideas. While they don't meet our strict definition of theory, there is no law against attaching the term theory to any idea (ie. hyroplate theory, hydro-sorting theory). So they can then say, "well we have theories about how this or that can happen." "We are all dealing with the same facts." OK, but what they utterly lack is a unified, working model.

Ultimately, these arguments are philosophy of science arguments and need to be approached from that direction. No working model ... no science.


"NO WORKING MODEL, NO SCIENCE", No, I'm not kidding. Are you saying that when lots of "people spend their entire careers learning and studying an issue", that that is the ONE TIME that a working model is not required?

It can be terribly frustrating to spend a bunch of time explaining the known science behind an issue like climate change, only to have the person you are explaining it to reject it out of hand.

It can be equally frustrating to spend a bunch of time explaining a political scandal involved with global warming, complete with news media omissions and cover-ups, and have a half dozen opponents not acknowledge that it could be a serious problem. Have you ever given a moments thought to just how corrupt an application of global warming remedies could become over the years, especially if there can be no working model to provide information to the public showing just how effective it all is?

So rather than waste time explaining why scientists conclude that humans are contributing significantly to climate change, it's better to just suggest that you read a book on it.

And for me, rather than explaining just how big of a multi-billion dollar cash cow global warming solutions could be for governments and the special interest scientific community worldwide, it's better for me to just suggest that you read some information on past tyrannies of the world, or U.S. founders mistrust of a large, central government.

Perhaps easier for you is to do a simple Google search on the subject. I would specifically direct your attention to the US EPA site onclimate change. There is a lot of good, basic information on there.

The same multi-million dollar EPA that commanded the U.S. to use MTBE in gasoline? The U.S. EPA has dome some good in its 40+ year existence. It's also proven itself to be an arrogant, power and money seeking bureaucracy, that isn't accountable to anyone when it screws up. Its biggest concern is its political power.

However, I don't think you really care whether the science is actually sound or not. Your motivation is to try and call into question legitimate scientific fields and bring them down to the level of creation science and ID so that those pursuits seem more legitimate.

My biggest concern is actually to awaken anyone who isn't completely closed minded about actual history, to the fact that factions and tyrants can and have completely destroyed civilizations before. The U.S. founders and original inhabitants of the U.S. had first hand knowledge of it, but 200 years later, many U.S. residents somehow believe it can't happen again.

What's my justification for accusing you of having such a motivation? Simple. Christians should be one of the last groups to deny human caused climate change. We believe that God has charged us to care for the earth; that should be one of our primary purposes in life.

The Christian God did not instruct us to worship the earth. (That's what atheists do) We're to "take dominion" of it. Admittedly, when I see video of people in China walking around with cloths over their faces to breath through, with a hazy background behind them, I think action should be taken. But most everyone can agree on that. We don't need government, or scientific community elites, to tell us how dirty things are.

In fact, it was the very first charge that God gave to humans. And yet, it is Christians who are the major group I see denying that climate change is real. Christians should be the ones standing up and arguing that we are not taking care of this earth. We are slowly (actually not that slowly) poisoning it and soon it will be a place we barely recognize.

It sure will, when government starts banning older cars and older small engines, requiring new ones to be purchased, and accepting briefcases full of cash from makers of new cars and small engines. Or designating certain days when woodburning stoves aren't permitted to be used. (Woodburning stove control is now happening in parts of California)

So why do they deny? Simply an attempt to discredit science ... what other motivation could there be?

To retain some of their liberty and money maybe?

To stop these crazy liberals from enacting measures that reduce pollution, seek alternative energy sources, minimize harm to non-human species? Oh what a miserable world this would be if that happened :sarcasm:

Have you ever heard the phrase "Give me liberty or give me death"? Is that just a talk-radio joke, or do you think it was actually said during deliberations of the U.S. founding? If you believe it happened, what do you think inspired someone to be that passionate about liberty?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by herebedragons, posted 01-13-2014 8:46 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by herebedragons, posted 01-15-2014 11:56 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 165 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-22-2014 6:37 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 272 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 115 of 184 (716349)
01-14-2014 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by marc9000
01-14-2014 9:11 PM


Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
If it could be shown that complex, orderly biological systems like the bacterial flagellum could have been formed by ONE CERTAIN gradual Darwinian process, then ID would be falsified on the secular scientific grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when natural causes can clearly shown to be able to do the job. So far, no one Darwinian process has been clearly constructed by science to form the bacterial flagellum. Evolutionists demand proof that NO Darwinian pathway could have formed it, requiring an impossible, infinite search. ID is actually more falsifiable than evolution.

That has been done. The flagellum problem has been solved.

But here is another item that is quite interesting, and quite pertinent to this discussion.

It is an on-line lecture, close to an hour in length, but the points it makes are important. Give it a try:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 9:11 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 994
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 116 of 184 (716350)
01-14-2014 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by herebedragons
01-13-2014 9:07 AM


Re: There's only one type of science
marc9000 writes:

Not because they conflict with my worldview, because they conflict with the establishment clause of the first amendment.

What????? Please explain.

No one particular religion is permitted to be established in the U.S. Atheism has ALL the characteristics of religion. I know the standard talking point is that it's just a lack of belief, so it's not a religion. Then why would a"lack of belief" cause so much organization? Why are there so many atheist groups? They have political motives the same (or worse) than any religion, and the founders of the U.S. knew what a worldview, not only a religion, would do to a free society.

What you are confusing is methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Science is, by definition, constrained to methodological naturalism.

"Constrained"? When it allows atheist activists like Barbara Forrest to be a board member of a group that influences public science education?

If you "non-rant" OP is about philosophical naturalism, then fine, but you need to be able to distinguish between the two types. You don't seem to be able to, so you accuse all science of being philosophical in nature, which is incorrect.

Not all science, just some.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by herebedragons, posted 01-13-2014 9:07 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2014 10:32 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2014 1:56 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 128 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2014 10:25 AM marc9000 has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1508
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 117 of 184 (716351)
01-14-2014 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by marc9000
01-14-2014 9:11 PM


Re: falsification
So far, no one Darwinian process has been clearly constructed by science to form the bacterial flagellum.

Your a little behind in your ID theory.

Evolution of the bacterial flagella (published 10 years ago in 2003)

Game over?

ID is actually more falsifiable than evolution.

I think you meant to say "ID has been falsified rather than evolution."

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 9:11 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 118 of 184 (716352)
01-14-2014 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by marc9000
01-14-2014 10:09 PM


Re: There's only one type of science
No one particular religion is permitted to be established in the U.S. Atheism has ALL the characteristics of religion. I know the standard talking point is that it's just a lack of belief, so it's not a religion. Then why would a"lack of belief" cause so much organization? Why are there so many atheist groups? They have political motives the same (or worse) than any religion, and the founders of the U.S. knew what a worldview, not only a religion, would do to a free society.

This is exactly why atheism should be, and is, treated as though it were a religion for all purposes of interpreting the First Amendment. However, it has nothing to do with your previous bizarre claims.

"Constrained"? When it allows atheist activists like Barbara Forrest to be a board member of a group that influences public science education?

Science allows all sorts of people to join all sorts of pressure groups. It allows Presbyterians to join the NRA, Zen Buddhists to join the Sierra Club, and Shi'ite Muslims to join PETA. Being an abstraction, science could hardly prevent it. What does that have to do with anything?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 10:09 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 119 of 184 (716354)
01-14-2014 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by herebedragons
01-13-2014 9:07 AM


Re: There's only one type of science
What????? Please explain.

So there you have it. Cosmology violates the First Amendment because science does not prevent Barbara Forrest, an atheist, from sitting on the board of a non-profit organisation.

Possibly at some point marc will tie this in to how we can't smell distant galaxies, but I'm already feeling way enlightened by the luminosity of his intellect, how 'bout you?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by herebedragons, posted 01-13-2014 9:07 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by herebedragons, posted 01-16-2014 10:01 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 184 (716355)
01-15-2014 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by marc9000
01-14-2014 9:16 PM


I don't know why I even bothered.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 9:16 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 01-15-2014 8:57 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019