Thinking Skins Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 What I find so funny about this argument is that, if we look at the number of people who are actually studying science, the number in the US is dwindling. People are famous for giving the quotes "I have always hated mathematics", or "Science just wasn't right for me". But how can people then enter into this debate if they don't actually study science? Are these people willing to just say that that they believe anything that any scientist says because science is based on facts? This really puzzles me because in the whole thing about evolution, big bang, and a lot of other stuff, many are quick to turn from the Bible, but they themselves do not fully understand what they believe, and even more don't want to learn more about it? How stupid is that? How can a person who hates science believe that it is the guiding light? I mean, wouldn't that at least make people a little more interested in science and reading about these things? Instead what I see is a bunch of people who are quick to pronounce what they saw on the Discovery Channel because it looked interesting. But these same people can't engage in discussions about the topic because all they know is that that the 'big bang' they showed on TV had some nice graphics. It just puzzles me to understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 There are several people on this board that post things so detail oriented you'll have to read it several times to understand it. on both sides.... The search button is your friend... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Just because i don't know every aspect of something doesn't mean i shouldn't believe it or that it isn't true. i don't know that much about the War of 1812 - but i do know when and where it happened - therefore i can speak enough about it to know it is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 What I do know about the Religion versus Science debate is that nothing good can possibly come from this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool Hand Loki Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Phrasing it as an adversarial issue is going to cause problems. Doesn't have to be X v. Y all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Well first of all we are talking about HIGH SCHOOL classes, so the students really have no choice, they are going to taking a Science class. The question/debate is whether religion should be injected into science class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 What I find so funny about this argument is that, if we look at the number of people who are actually studying science, the number in the US is dwindling. People are famous for giving the quotes "I have always hated mathematics", or "Science just wasn't right for me". Source? But how can people then enter into this debate if they don't actually study science? Are these people willing to just say that that they believe anything that any scientist says because science is based on facts? I'm not sure either. Define 'people'. This really puzzles me because in the whole thing about evolution, big bang, and a lot of other stuff, many are quick to turn from the Bible, but they themselves do not fully understand what they believe, and even more don't want to learn more about it? How stupid is that? So I guess from the above, you are an expert on all things theological and biblical related. That's good, we can use your resources in future debates. How can a person who hates science believe that it is the guiding light? I mean, wouldn't that at least make people a little more interested in science and reading about these things? Drink another one man :laugh: Instead what I see is a bunch of people who are quick to pronounce what they saw on the Discovery Channel because it looked interesting. But these same people can't engage in discussions about the topic because all they know is that that the 'big bang' they showed on TV had some nice graphics. I think what we've all learned from this is that the people you associate with are idiots. But I'm not sure what you're hoping to prove? :whoknows: It just puzzles me to understand this. I'm certain. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchwood Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 why does religion and science have to be mutually exclusive? I belive in God and Creation but I also believe through the scientific process great discoveries have been made. Why can't we teach the theory of evolution and teach the theory of creation. Although I beleive intilegent design is the truth I have no facts to prove it, nor does an evolutionist to his theory of evolution. There were many a great man that were not only scientists but also extremely religious, Sir Isaac newton comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchwood Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 for further clarification, 85% of the worlds population believes in intelligent design, why can't we present that option, not necessarily slanted towards on religion or another, but at least allow our students to have a choice otherwise they will all be drones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 why does religion and science have to be mutually exclusive? I belive in God and Creation but I also believe through the scientific process great discoveries have been made. Why can't we teach the theory of evolution and teach the theory of creation. Although I beleive intilegent design is the truth I have no facts to prove it, nor does an evolutionist to his theory of evolution. There were many a great man that were not only scientists but also extremely religious, Sir Isaac newton comes to mind. Nice reasonable approach, but don't teach the "theory" of creation as a science. It cannot be tested or supported through repeatable observations. Teach it as a belief and I would have no problem with it. The problem I have is they are trying to interject it into the sciences cirriculum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Hello? SuomynonA, you still here? you can't start a thread posing questions that you know will spark a debate then abandon it. Maybe he/she just doesn't like the answers given :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchwood Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 see I don't have a problem with the interjection of creation into a science class because it is an improvable "theory" or belief just as evolution is. to fully round our kids we need to allow them to think for themselves. I mean I see kids now that can't even do math on their own because schools allow calculators in elementary schools. I can do long division because I was not allowed to use calculators until High school. I say present everything equally and let them choose the right way for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLadyRaven Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 On Average most churches in American are losing attendence if you exam the data. So It kinda negates the posters original point there doenst it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 see I don't have a problem with the interjection of creation into a science class because it is an improvable "theory" or belief just as evolution is. to fully round our kids we need to allow them to think for themselves. I mean I see kids now that can't even do math on their own because schools allow calculators in elementary schools. I can do long division because I was not allowed to use calculators until High school. I say present everything equally and let them choose the right way for them Evolution is very much supported by observational data. Take as a prime example the change bacteria go through to develope resistance to antibiotics. Through exposure to the antibiotics the bacteria evolves into and organism that can survive the application of the drug. This is direct observational confirmation of the Theory of Evolution. Another example is dwarfism in isolated island settings. In remote locations on small islands it has been observed repeatedly that species evolve to a smaller stature then in large abundent areas. They have changed to match the surroundings, again observational proof of the theory of evolution. The above a just a couple of examples of why evolution is a science and creationism is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Nice reasonable approach, but don't teach the "theory" of creation as a science. It cannot be tested or supported through repeatable observations. Teach it as a belief and I would have no problem with it.The problem I have is they are trying to interject it into the sciences cirriculum. Nor can the Theory of evolution. Scientists have found remains, simularities in bone structire, etc. But, they can't prove that man evolved from any other species, nor can they repeatedly observe something that they can't proved happened in the first place, but if it did, would have taken millions of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Nice reasonable approach, but don't teach the "theory" of creation as a science. It cannot be tested or supported through repeatable observations. Teach it as a belief and I would have no problem with it. Science uses the term theory. Religion uses the term faith. Theory and faith have the same connotation. Which is trying to explain that which can not be explained by pure fact. I would argue that creationism has no less factual basis than does evolution. Why? Because no matter what evidence you have of evolution (which is substantial), science must come to grips with the concept of the beginning of life. Where did "it" all begin? Theories abound, however these theories are based on loose interpretations of data connected by (scientific faith) theories. Thus, creationism AND evolution can and do co-exist in the intellectual mind. Something can not out of nothing. Thus something WAS created. If you come to grips with that reality then you must come to the following conclusion.... That everything that exists was created. Science is just a crude method of trying to explain and understand that which has been created. SO, Science and creationism do co-exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Science uses the term theory.Religion uses the term faith. Theory and faith have the same connotation. Which is trying to explain that which can not be explained by pure fact. I would argue that creationism has no less factual basis than does evolution. Why? Because no matter what evidence you have of evolution (which is substantial), science must come to grips with the concept of the beginning of life. Where did "it" all begin? Theories abound, however these theories are based on loose interpretations of data connected by (scientific faith) theories. Thus, creationism AND evolution can and do co-exist in the intellectual mind. Something can not out of nothing. Thus something WAS created. If you come to grips with that reality then you must come to the following conclusion.... That everything that exists was created. Science is just a crude method of trying to explain and understand that which has been created. SO, Science and creationism do co-exist. Why must something have been created? Can't it have always been? If everything must be created then following that logic what or who created god? Then if you go on to say god always was, why is it such a leap to believe the universe always was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Why must soemthing have been created? Can't it have always been? If everything must be created then following that logic what or who created god? Then if you go on to say god always was, why is it such a leap to believe the universe always was. The only way that I would get trapped by your logic is if I would only accept a scientific explaination of the beginning of our universe. That does not mean I reject your logic, just that you logic implies the concept of infinity. Infinity is one of those beautiful terms used by mathematicians and scientists to explain that which can not be explained. Infinity = faith. Agree? Your point about who created god is a good one. And I think you answered it quite nicely when you closed you above statement... "Then if you go on to say god always was, why is it such a leap to believe the universe always was." When you use the term leap, are you speaking of a leap of faith? Sounds kind of religious to me..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 for further clarification, 85% of the worlds population believes in intelligent design, why can't we present that option, not necessarily slanted towards on religion or another, but at least allow our students to have a choice otherwise they will all be drones Source? What about the US population? If 85% thought we were from the spaghetti god, would you want it taught in schools? The reason ID isn't taught is because it isn't based on facts, it is based on the absence of facts. The ID crowd uses ID to "fill in the blanks" if areas science does not understand yet, without giving any facts to back it up. I have stated many times, I would have no problem teaching ID in schools if they showed actual facts, and theory to back up their argument. They don't because there is no facts, only things such as "it has to be that way because it works". That is not science, but faith and belongs in a religious school or a theology class, not a public school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 I have stated many times, I would have no problem teaching ID in schools if they showed actual facts, and theory to back up their argument. They don't because there is no facts, only things such as "it has to be that way because it works". That is not science, but faith and belongs in a religious school or a theology class, not a public school. Yet you would accept teaching the theory of the "Big Bang"? Whatever the big bang theory is based upon, there is a healthy portion of faith included. Hope even. I see you arguing that ID is based upon the non factual, yet when you say "it has to be that way because it works" I suddenly hear voices in my head (maybe even you chrommy) saying the same thing about the big bang.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 The only way that I would get trapped by your logic is if I would only accept a scientific explaination of the beginning of our universe. That does not mean I reject your logic, just that you logic implies the concept of infinity. Infinity is one of those beautiful terms used by mathematicians and scientists to explain that which can not be explained. Infinity = faith. Agree? Your point about who created god is a good one. And I think you answered it quite nicely when you closed you above statement... "Then if you go on to say god always was, why is it such a leap to believe the universe always was." When you use the term leap, are you speaking of a leap of faith? Sounds kind of religious to me..... Your correct thet would be a leap of faith to state the universe always has been as fact or even a sound theory. I would in no way promote teaching that fact or theory in a science class, because there is no experimantal or observational data to prove or disprove it. I would think the same should be done with creationism. With no experimental or observational data to even suggest it might be valid I wouldn't want it taught as science either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Science uses the term theory.Religion uses the term faith. Theory and faith have the same connotation. Which is trying to explain that which can not be explained by pure fact. I would argue that creationism has no less factual basis than does evolution. Why? You are 100% wrong Portis. Here is the difference between theory and faith. Theory is based on mathematical equations, observations, and facts. Faith is based on the absence of fact, that is why it is called faith. Creationism has NOT A SINGLE FACT to back up its idea (it isn't a theory). Evolution has thousands of examples, and well documented changes and mutations in the genes of animals to back up its claim. It is 100% science, and it explains how we evolved from simple creatures to complex creatures. It explains how we went from a water species to a land species. It explains why all mammals on this planet have the same arm bones. It explains alot. All ID explains is nothing. It is based on the absence of facts and observations, so it is not the same. It shouldn't even be said in the same breath, because one is theology and one is science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Yet you would accept teaching the theory of the "Big Bang"? Whatever the big bang theory is based upon, there is a healthy portion of faith included. Hope even.I see you arguing that ID is based upon the non factual, yet when you say "it has to be that way because it works" I suddenly hear voices in my head (maybe even you chrommy) saying the same thing about the big bang.... I think from obeservational data the fact that there was a massive explosion("Big Bang") billions of years ago is not disputable. Was that the start of the universe or not?? Thats not clear. There is measurable background radiation along with cosmic expansion which proves the fact that the explosion occured. To not accept or believe this could only be because of lack of understanding of mathmatics and astronomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gchwood Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 "Evolution is very much supported by observational data. Take as a prime example the change bacteria go through to develope resistance to antibiotics. Through exposure to the antibiotics the bacteria evolves into and organism that can survive the application of the drug. This is direct observational confirmation of the Theory of Evolution. Another example is dwarfism in isolated island settings. In remote locations on small islands it has been observed repeatedly that species evolve to a smaller stature then in large abundent areas. They have changed to match the surroundings, again observational proof of the theory of evolution. The above a just a couple of examples of why evolution is a science and creationism is not." What you are describing here is not evolution, but adaptation. In the same light I grow a beard in the winter to help keep me warm. I am adapting to the environment. Over the course of time, if the climate here in Virginia were to get colder and colder I would perpetually have a beard. Doesn't mean I evolved just means I adapted. In evolution there is factual evidence, just like there is none in creation. YOu nor I can prove that man came from the primordial ooze or even more late monkies. "Why must something have been created? Can't it have always been? If everything must be created then following that logic what or who created god? Then if you go on to say god always was, why is it such a leap to believe the universe always was." If you question who created God, it can be countered, what created the unstable molecules that created the big bang? The begining of time noone can prove or disprove any theories. The notion of the Big Bang is as irrational as the notion of intelligent design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Yet you would accept teaching the theory of the "Big Bang"? Whatever the big bang theory is based upon, there is a healthy portion of faith included. Hope even. Not true at all. Using scientific instruments, we can see the size and the shape of the early universe. We can see how everthing was 15billion years ago. It was based on observations and facts, and it is not that there is a health portion of faith involved, instead it is a theory based on solid observations, made by instruments which I design and work on. I see you arguing that ID is based upon the non factual, yet when you say "it has to be that way because it works" I suddenly hear voices in my head (maybe even you chrommy) saying the same thing about the big bang.... Well, just because you are uninformed about how science came up with the big bang theory, does not mean it is invalid, it just means you are uninformed. If you want, I can give you many many links on projects that work on the big bang study. I have actually worked on and have designed some of the instruments which we are currently building to study the backround radiation left over from the big band. The 30m milimeter telescope to be built in Antartica is one of the instruments which will studying the big bang, and I have been working on the secondary optical system, as well as the alignment systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.