Originally posted by FeceMan
Then everyone who doesn't believe in God is an irreligious ******* who I'm going to enjoy watching burning in hell.
well, to enjoy another's suffering is worthy of hell in itself, isnt it?
what would jesus think of such a wish?
that is the part of christianity which has always bothered me and turned me off to organised religion. not the concept of hell, but the wish for it on others, which would fall under "revenge" if im not mistaken.
its one thing to acknowledge that there is a hell and those who piss god off will fry in it, and its another thing entirely to feel that you are somehow a spokesman for god and would be so bold as to damn others in his name...and worse yet, find glee in the thought of someone's eternal suffering...i find that disturbing beyond belief. not to target you, but its such a widespread accepted and encouraged attitude...i have to ask WHY?
So the debate here is whether or not we agree whether it is appropriate that the belief that a higher power created the universe should be taught in a science class?
Isn't that more of a philosophical debate than a scientific theory?
Shouldn't even the most dyed-in-the-wool christian agree that the belief in a higher power, and that power's supposed involvement with the creation of the universe, is more a question of faith than science?
Originally posted by KharmaDog
So the debate here is whether or not we agree whether it is appropriate that the belief that a higher power created the universe should be taught in a science class?Isn't that more of a philosophical debate than a scientific theory?
Shouldn't even the most dyed-in-the-wool christian agree that the belief in a higher power, and that power's supposed involvement with the creation of the universe, is more a question of faith than science?
Believing in a "higher power" is no more or less "philosophical" than the belief that matter somehow spontaneously merged together and formed intelligent life. That belief system is entitled Naturalism
Anyway..there is no tangible proof to support either claim. When you don't have tangible proof of something, then the only thing you have to validate it is "faith."
"Faith" is essentially the foundation of both "life origin" theories. Both claim to have scientific evidence to support them, however, much of the scientific data gathered for either theory is extremely biased. Seeing as how most scientists who gather and incorporate the data into the studies are generally "Creationists" / "Evolutionists" and are not objectively trying to gather information, but rather..subjectively gathering information to support their own personal belief systems.
On a related note..could someone please respond to my previous request..people seem to be avoiding it like the plague. Let me post it again.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where macro evolution has been observed. And don't give me any of that "variation" within a family speel..I want hardcore proof of an animal of one particular family..evolving into another one(ie reptile changing into a dog or cat, reptile to bird..etc)And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.
Are you saying that every scientist who perform repeatable observable tangible experiments and find data in favour of evolutionary theory is being "extremely biased" because s/he's not actively trying to disprove her- or himself?
Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where intelligent design or creationism has been observed. And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.
Then I might go bother to trawl through my old notes.
You want proof, but you know that everyone will run to the fossil record to do so. But, we all know that no one on your side of the debate will accept that as evidence. 150 million years of evidence isn't enough for you. What do you want then? You want a process that takes hundred to thousands of years to be proven to you through observation that has only existed in the last 150 years! That's cool, you need that.
Look at a virus. It evolves. Look at the effect of this bird flu. It's effecting birds, but all the talk about it adapting and changing into a virus fatal to humans is front page. If even the most simple of life forms on the planet can evolve, then why can't we?
Besides, as has been pointed out by numerous people, this thread isn't about which is right and wrong.
Read my first post again, I was addressing you specifically Whob. If you can't accept the definition of science, then fight so hard to change the meaning of science. Not evolution.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Are you saying that every scientist who perform repeatable observable tangible experiments and find data in favour of evolutionary theory is being "extremely biased" because s/he's not actively trying to disprove her- or himself?Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where intelligent design or creationism has been observed. And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.
Then I might go bother to trawl through my old notes.
I'm sure he's tried to look it up on the net. We all have at some point in this argument. However, we all know that the first 150, 000 links provided are coming from biased religious sites. Why? Because they have the most to loose when the reality starts to set in with their followers. So, they toss this fasle evidence up on their websites...and in the process dilute search results.
'Naturalism' is simply a reatrded term used by despearte relgionists to try and make out that the scientific process that has labelled Evolution as a valid theoty is somehow acting with a pre-disposed bias.
That is the most arrant nonsense and a feeble attempt to try and undermine it. Scientists have NO suich predispositions- they work on one method alone, the scientific method. That supports the modern theory of evolution and it does NOT support Intelligent Design. The science points to what you call naturalism- a 'belief' in naturalism is NOT creating the viewpoint.
EVOLUTION THEORY IS NOT A FAITH. Anyone calling it one has lost all touch with modern rationality and how the scientific method works. And people like whob go around asking for hardcore proof for it to be labelled a non-faith... my word, that is so dumb as to stretch credibility... it proves the very point I am making about how they do not understand the process of science. Science is NOT maths- you do not 'prove' things in that way. You make workable theories based on the available observable evidence- of which there is staggering amounts, from studies of biologies, especially on island habitats, to the fossil record. The sum total of that knowledge- which is forever being assaulted, changed, and added to, and so the theory of evolution will change and improve over time- points towasrds evolution as a valid and acceptable theory to explain observed events. Rather like gravity- you going to ask fir direct proof of its operation now? Sorry, kiddo, we can ONLY observe the resultant effects, which is exactly what we do with evolution. There is no 'only' about evolution being a theory. All working scientific models are theories. The theory of gravity best explains that observed phenomenon of a force aacting on objects. The theory of evolution best explains the development of life on Earth. What evolution is is valid, acceptable, and the best current answer we have.
Unlike ID, which is a BELIEF about the cause of evolution and nothing more. There is no evidence that survives rational assault by scientific method to support it. Hence it does not belong in classes.
Centuries from now, people of even the meanest intelligence will understand this- but still we will have the pathetic and desperate bleating of those wanting a time machine to go back and directly 'observe' these things before they think it is anything more than a faith.
Truly contemptible.
A quote here in support of this argument:
"Actually... it’s perfectly acceptable to ask for evidence, and evidence is available in abundance. There is such a compelling accumulation of observation and reason, in fact, that practically the entire scientific community is united in agreement that evolution is the best explanation that we have so far of the current diversity of species. What we don’t claim to have is proof of the sort that is sometimes available for mathematical puzzles. It is by remaining open to the possibility of a better explanation that we avoid the kind of mental stagnation that defined the Dark Ages (AKA the Age of Faith).
All statements about the nature of things are made by fallible human beings, even statements that are attributed to gods. When the foundational evidence for a "revealed" explanation is that the source is supposed to be infallible, a single contradiction or inconsistency is a fatal flaw.
It is not true that scientifically inclined people "believe" in evolution in the same way as others place their faith in what their religious leaders tell them. The difference is in the willingness to seriously consider new attempts to explain observed phenomena. The key word here is new. There’s no good reason anyone should have to repeatedly listen to the same tired old discredited explanations. That’s why scientific societies set up committees to review articles before allowing them to be published in the most prestigious journals.
People who are scientifically inclined do not "adore" Darwin in the same sense as people who commit themselves to a god. We do not take the sayings of Darwin as "gospel" truth. We recognize that his understanding was as limited as is our own, and more so since he did not have access to some of the tools and discoveries we use today, such as genetics, electron microscopy and plate tectonics.
There are undoubtedly glaring errors galore throughout Darwin’s body of work, as there surely are throughout our current understanding of how things work. Such errors do not, by themselves, invalidate a theory that is otherwise the best explanation we have. On the contrary, contradictions and inconsistencies are actually quite valuable in that they provide the hooks on which to hang even better explanations.
If there are teachers who are telling students that the discovery of all knowledge (whether scientifically or otherwise) is something that happened only in the past and that there is no future possibility for these students to uncover even better explanations, then those teachers are seriously misinformed. Parents who hope that their children will retain their joy of exploration throughout their lives should seriously consider removing their children from the stunting influence of such a teacher.
Did Darwin really say that a lack of fossil evidence would doom his theory? I doubt it. But, what if he did? I’m sure he’s been wrong before. He couldn’t have known that we would have ontological and DNA evidence that would give such overwhelming corroboration to the theory.
I was unable to find where he said such a thing. However, I did find these close substitutes:
The number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory [organic evolution] be true, such have lived upon the earth.
...Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? (Darwin, The Origin of the Species, New York: Heritage Press, page 135).
Are there other such statements he made that specifically indicate that he thought his theory would be doomed by a lack of fossil evidence? These do not strike me as particularly strong statements.
Surely it is frustrating to not have any more fossil evidence than we do, because this would be tangible evidence that we could hold in our hands. As primates our sense of knowing is so strongly rooted in what we can hold and turn over in our hands. This is not to say the fossil evidence is all that bad, but only that we will always feel as though we should have more.
I’m sure the archeologists are peddling as fast as they can, so I don’t know how much more we can expect of them. To watch them at work, we have to be surprised that they get anything done at all, considering that they dig with a feather duster, to ensure that they do not disturb the evidence any more than absolutely necessary. We are so conditioned, by the curriculum of schooling, to going through the history of science in four or nine short months at breakneck speed. To suddenly slow down to the pace of current discovery feels like running out of gas.
Creationists continually taunt, "But where are the transitional forms?" Every time another piece of the puzzle is put into place they want to know where the fossils are that show that the discovered animal was ancestor to any current day species. When another fossil is found that seems to fit directly between the first one and the same current day animal, they again call for "transitional forms." Apparently, somebody’s going to have to find a fossilized pregnant monkey whose fetus is a little girl or boy before some will be satisfied.
This whole problem was brought into bold relief for me a few days ago in reading the thoughts of one such person who is calling for transitional forms. He said that he would not be satisfied that human beings (who all have two eyes) have descended from amoebas (who have none) until archeologists uncover a one eyed creature. This is just a reminder that there will always be some people who can never be convinced. There are even some still who believe the earth is flat."
And finally, for those who have obviously forgotten how science works, here is an explanation of the false concept of 'proof' in this instance:
-----
The phrase "scientific fact" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "scientific proof." Science, unlike mathematics, does not consist of a collection of airtight proofs. Nor is it a large body of "facts." Science is a method of learning about our universe and how things work. The concept of "proof" does not exist in science, because the essence of science is being always open to new evidence and new explanations, which may call into question tentatively accepted theories.
Religion, on the other hand, does pretend to know certain so-called "truths" with absolute certainty, through faith. Faith, basically, is a determination to remain convinced of some proposition, despite any and all evidence or reasoning that might ever be offered to the contrary. Science is distinguished from religion in that it does not rely upon faith, but rather upon evidence and reason.
While it is not possible to conclusively "prove" a scientific theory, it is possible to disprove them. Just because a particular explanation is accepted upon faith by some or many people does not automatically make it scientifically disproved. However, if an explanation is merely a matter of faith, in that there is no evidence or reasoning to support it, then that idea has no place being taught in public schools.
How shall it be decided what evidence is most convincing, particularly when some people are admittedly determined to completely discount any evidence or reasoning which does not agree with their own pet explanations? I don’t know. I’m asking. This is a heavy question, and is the subject of much political game playing in textbook selection committees all across the country.
This is meta-science. Did I just coin this word? I’m not widely read enough in this area to know. What I mean is, that this question of how science should be guided or controlled is an interesting question of its own, and may even be a subject worthy of study by children as well as by students in state supported colleges and universities.
Into this environment, a decade or so ago, steps "Dr" Kent Hovind, a self-described "creation science evangelist" who offers a substantial reward to anyone who "proves" evolution. He states that evolution refers to the origin of time, space, matter, higher elements from hydrogen, stars & planets, life from inanimate matter, kinds (species), and not just gradual changes within species.
Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a "scientific proof" it seems absolutely unclear to me just what specifically we are being asked to prove. For example, it makes no sense to prove "the origin of time." Someone needs to make a specific statement that might tend to explain whether/how/when? time began. I’m betting several people have taken a crack at making such a statement. I know Steven B. Hawking, for one, has. Which theory is Dr Hovind suggesting is the "evolution" explanation that is to be proven?
If it were possible to "scientifically prove" anything, a contest such as this one would need to be judged by impartial, fair-minded people. Dr Hovind refuses to identify the judges. Presumably they would be hand picked creation science buddies who accept some scriptural explanation on faith. In other words, they are determined to reject any and all possible alternative explanations.
The existence of this unclaimed quarter million dollar standing offer is constantly thrown out as evidence that "evolutionism" is a faith because has not yet been proven. The fact is, though that there is considerable convincing evidence for a variety of theories across the wide range of scientific thought that Hovind calls "evolution." The fact that more is being learned every day about these matters, and that current thinking is constantly revised is proof that such scientific theories are not accepted on faith, but rather provisionally.
The fact that nothing can ever be scientifically proven is not proof that every idea is necessarily accepted on faith. Dr Hovind and those who publicize his unclaimed reward would have us believe that faith means "not knowing for sure but betting something is so anyway." In fact though, what faith is, is "being determined to believe something, despite any and all evidence or reasoning that might ever be offered to the contrary." And it is exactly this kind of stagnation of thought that the founders (of the U.S.) sought to protect us against with the First Amendment to the Constitution."
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You want proof, but you know that everyone will run to the fossil record to do so. But, we all know that no one on your side of the debate will accept that as evidence. 150 million years of evidence isn't enough for you. What do you want then?
Originally posted by yerssot
as BF (I think) once said:
"They'll be convinced when they find a human foetus in a chimpansee."
Well, I want to know what the people on Whobs side of the debate think happened to all these other life forms that existed? I'm not talking about dinosaurs, I talking about Neanderthal, Austrolopithicine, etc.
Also, I would like to revise my point of view on the subject, I believe that modern humans were dropped off by aliens. Well, only the white people...the rest are monkeys that god created.
Since I believe this without any observed evidence, I would like it to also be included in textbooks in Kansas. Since Aliens are involved it HAS to qualify as science.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Are you saying that every scientist who perform repeatable observable tangible experiments and find data in favour of evolutionary theory is being "extremely biased" because he's not actively trying to disprove himself?
It depends on what you consider as being "proof" of evolutionary theory. "Evidence" can easily be manipulated to support any type of argument, if it is given during the right circumstances, uses the right type of terminology(in TOE case, this is usually represented by quasi-scientific jargon), and is presented to others by one who is charasmatic enough to appeal to the masses.
Neo-Darwinism is a philosophical concept that seems to have mastered the art of evidence manipulation and deception. Particularly since the theory itself is said to be constantly "evolving."
How can a theory be considered scientific..if it has no definitive constants to it? Without constants..such as scientific laws and fundemental theories..science as we know it would fail to exist.
Moving on..if evidence is found that doesn't support the TOE..then guess what happens.. the theory "evolves" into another form..one that the current evidence found can't disprove. Real silly stuff..however, its seems to have worked on the masses for many years, so if it ain't broke..why fix it, particularly since many continue to buy all the tripe that these so called "scientists" preach.
Please give me a link..or provide for me an example..be it historical, scientific, etc..where intelligent design or creationism has been observed. And please make sure that the proof given is currently widely accepted by a majority of the scientific community as being valid.
Oriinally posted by whobdamandog
Anyway..there is no tangible proof to support either claim. When you don't have tangible proof of something, then the only thing you have to validate it is "faith."
We can argue for hours about mutations, probability, natural selection etc..etc..But as stated above...there is no real tangible proof that supports either claim. Logical inference tells me, however, that the complex interworkings and order found through much of the Universe..more than likely point to the existence of "intelligent design"
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
these are not my words but they are very good words and makes a strong case......check out the website on the above link and I think you will understand the need for ID!
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And finally, for those who have obviously forgotten how science works, here is an explanation of the false concept of 'proof' in this instance:-----
The phrase "scientific fact" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "scientific proof." Science, unlike mathematics, does not consist of a collection of airtight proofs.
The other technique used by Neo Darwinists to support their claims..flood the chat board..with their "opinions"..in a pitiful attempt to confuse the masses, with scientific jargon/terminology that generally isn't understood by most the common man..or is not read by those who are generally overwhelmed by all the tripe posted. It generally consists of a few truths..but for the most part consists on nothing more than a multitude of deceptions.
I'm only going to respond to this one phrase..seeing as how the rest of your post just seemed to consist of a bunch of nonsensical rambling.
"scientific fact" is an oxymoron.
Science is defined as the study of natural phenomena.
A fact is basically defined as something known to have been found or have existed.
So basically what you are implying Ush is that there is nothing that can be found to be true or have existed within the study of natural phenomena?😕
Please clarify this for me.
And while your at it..please provide me examples of valid transitionals from the fossil record.
