Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8966 total)
82 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, frako, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (10 members, 72 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,415 Year: 5,163/23,288 Month: 284/1,784 Week: 171/211 Day: 19/60 Hour: 10/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Embarrassed Creationist
nator
Member (Idle past 629 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 14 of 69 (188423)
02-25-2005 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Lammy
02-25-2005 2:50 AM


quote:
The reason some people reject evolution is because it says nothing about god, and that is exactly the problem. I think evolution would have received more praises if it has a footnote that says "Mutation, which is the backbone of the theory, is caused by the Almighty Christian God and no other."

But no scientific theory has a footnote like that, so why would you expect just this one to and not all the others?

I mean, would the Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of a Helocentric Solar System be more be more palatable to Creationists if we had footnotes like "Bacteria reproducing inside a body which release toxins to cause illness is caused by the Almighty Christian God and no other.", or "The physical laws which deal with planetary orbits and mass are caused by the Almighty Christian god and no other."?

Or, do they accept these because they would look like idiots if they didn't?

Also, in what way does concluding that God is the cause of something increase our understanding of a phenomena?

Lastly, if you are a Roman Catholic, are you not aware that the Pope declared it OK to accept Biology these days?

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-25-2005 08:27 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 2:50 AM Lammy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 9:52 AM nator has responded
 Message 31 by Lammy, posted 02-25-2005 4:30 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 629 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 69 (188584)
02-25-2005 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Vercingetorix
02-25-2005 9:52 AM


quote:
I think that Science and the scietific method are both part of the Positivist Philosophy, and there fore trying to PROVE!

There is no 100% proven thing in science, and never has been.

quote:
C-Frog and R-Hector both talk about EVIDENCE. evidence leads to proof and there fore DOES PROVE, Science Proves.

No, evidence leads to confidence and reliability, not absolute, 100% proof. No matter how well-supported a theory is and no matter how confident we are in it's reliability, it could still be wrong, and must be amenable to falsification.

quote:
C-Frog: I don't think that God and Evolution are incompatable (in fact, most catholics i know think that God created the world through evolution). it is unacceptable for me because of faith.

Fine, as long as you stay out of the science classroom or legislation based upon your faith, I have no problem.

quote:
if something can be proven no faith is needed, if you ever need faith in science, because it is not proving anything it is junk science (like phrenology). if you can't prove it, by repeatable observation it shouldn't be science.

Repeatable observations, yes, and also accurate predictions and retrodictions.

The ToE has been tested more than just about any theory, and has survived all tests quite well. The mechanismaof Evolution are contested, but the existence of the event is undeniable, like the undeniability of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to make water. It has been that reliable and that well supported, and that many of it's predictions and retrodictions have been borne out.

quote:
look i think that creationism is the least likely scenario, but if i am true to my scientific roots, TOE is more likely, but until proven, still wrong.

As I said above, nothing in science is ever proven, just supported to a greater or lesser degree.

quote:
FAITH, has no place in SCIENCE!

Agreed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-25-2005 9:52 AM Vercingetorix has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Vercingetorix, posted 02-26-2005 1:10 PM nator has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 629 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 69 (188675)
02-26-2005 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Nighttrain
02-25-2005 10:02 PM


quote:
•Feelings of exhilaration or peace or pleasure during or after church? Hell, (sorry), I get those from adrenalin or endorphins in action.
•Feelings of security or community within a group? I can get that from whatever non-religious community group I pick
•Knowledge that you are part of the only religious group that is correct? EVERY religious group, church, sect, splinter community think that they, and only they, are on the right path.

You know, I think it is not a good idea to underestimate these items from your list.

While you get similar feelings from non-religious groups and activities, large groups of like-minded religious people can do (an have done) incredibly influential things, all due to unwavering, unquestioning belief. Sometimes these deeds are charitable and good, and sometimes they are, um, not.

The part that you and I probably could't bring to the party is the "unwavering, unquestioning" part, where the highly religious person can.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Nighttrain, posted 02-25-2005 10:02 PM Nighttrain 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 © 2020