BBay's Impression on God (last theological rant ever from me)

[Voodoo]

God is an expletive

[BootyBay]

science is more a way of think
trying to explain things through observations, experiments, ect.
thats all it is
your personal believes should have nothing to do with it
most scientists have had more their theories torn to pieces when someone shows the evidence does not hold then have found models that work


my only real problem with modern science is that most scientists are very poor at explaining things to the general public
and mahy believe that being correct or having the correct caculations or evidence will actually win the public to your side (ie the supposed Darwinism debate)
being correct has nothing to do with winning a debate when its in the public demain
some of it is cause people don't have the time to do all the research for themself, but mostely cause people don't care... they want the world to be molded into their own belief system
and sometimes its just not in their best interests... and acting rationaly is going against humanities natural instinct

Thank you very much actually.  That was almost exactly what I was trying to say.

[BootyBay]

Science is a process.  It is a method.  It is a verb.

Booty, stop treating it like a noun.

Lol.  Yessir.  I scienced all day yesterday.  It was truly ridiculous (I even scienced with some "NyQuil" to get some rest afterwards lol  Ya never can science too much actually).

[Cainad (dec.)]

You cannot disprove God with science.

possibly.

I thought part of the issue was that the idea of God is not falsifiable. This, of course, puts it in the same category as the invisible dragon that starts fires.

[Voodoo]

like disproving the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?

[Iason Ouabache]

like disproving the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?

RAmen!

[LMNO]

But, if thats true, then how does one "science"?

Hypothesis, experiment, observe, modify hypothesis.



Repeat as necessary.




Spag.

[Kai]

Creationism vs. Darwinism.  They're both too into their own philosophy and fail to see that they too might be wrong.

*brain melting*

Okay, gonna say this once, for your benefit. Evolutionary theory hasn't been called "Darwinism" by any biological scientist since we figured out genetic pathways in the 20th century. Darwins evolutionary theory didn't understand the pathway or mechanisms, only observed the expression. A merging of mendelian genetics with darwinian theory, plus more recent discoveries both molecular and morphological, is what we call modern evolutionary theory. No one except philosophers and creationists, who don't really /understand/ what they are talking about, call it Darwinism. Okay?

Also, must sadness at you not even knowing the scientific method. What do they teach these kids these days? Is our children learning?

[Cainad (dec.)]

Creationism vs. Darwinism.  They're both too into their own philosophy and fail to see that they too might be wrong.

*brain melting*

Okay, gonna say this once, for your benefit. Evolutionary theory hasn't been called "Darwinism" by any biological scientist since we figured out genetic pathways in the 20th century. Darwins evolutionary theory didn't understand the pathway or mechanisms, only observed the expression. A merging of mendelian genetics with darwinian theory, plus more recent discoveries both molecular and morphological, is what we call modern evolutionary theory. No one except philosophers and creationists, who don't really /understand/ what they are talking about, call it Darwinism. Okay?

Also, must sadness at you not even knowing the scientific method. What do they teach these kids these days? Is our children learning?

[Thurnez Isa]

No one except philosophers and creationists, who don't really /understand/ what they are talking about, call it Darwinism. Okay?

the problem is Kai with the foundies is that the idea of science being in constant change and flux doesnt make sense to them. In their world they have a book that is definate (there is interpretations but definate on its validity) and so they look for the equivalent in the science world. And allthough darwins theories have evolved and developed over the years to a point that reading the "origin of species" as the definate book on evolution would be rediculas, they view that book as they would view their holy book, or as one creationist (can't remember the name) said "the grand creation myth of our society"
if you could put yourself in their shoes this way of looking at evolution as darwinism actually makes sense from their point of view... and then you can understand what we're up against, and if you think of how the 21'st century rolls along it may seem more and more that "reason over superstition" is a losing battle

[Kai]

No one except philosophers and creationists, who don't really /understand/ what they are talking about, call it Darwinism. Okay?

the problem is Kai with the foundies is that the idea of science being in constant change and flux doesnt make sense to them. In their world they have a book that is definate (there is interpretations but definate on its validity) and so they look for the equivalent in the science world. And allthough darwins theories have evolved and developed over the years to a point that reading the "origin of species" as the definate book on evolution would be rediculas, they view that book as they would view their holy book, or as one creationist (can't remember the name) said "the grand creation myth of our society"
if you could put yourself in their shoes this way of looking at evolution as darwinism actually makes sense from their point of view... and then you can understand what we're up against, and if you think of how the 21'st century rolls along it may seem more and more that "reason over superstition" is a losing battle

I'm told one of the universal marks of existence is impermanence. If they cling to this static notion, they won't last for much longer. That sort of thinking collapses from the bottom up.

Its only a matter of time.

I just wish these intelligent design people would be more creative with their 'attacks'. It would bring more entertainment, at least. UFO conspiracy theory freaks are so much more funny.

[Thurnez Isa]

plus if you look at it from the publics point of view
which one is more easy to understand
there is a difference of opinion of the complexity of life between an idea that was presented and through evidence found validy upon then through a series of work in other fields was added to so to explain that the process of complexity is that through random mutations and an idea that those most adapted to their enviroment will breed more so will produced new varients of their species and given time will great brand new species - far we know vs an interpretation of a series of documents that came about 100 - 200 AD
or
there is two books.. one will save your soul and the other has a bounch of sciencey stuff about monkeys

as long as the education system is good (thank god the canadian education system hasnt taken too far a dive yet) you can counter act this simplicity of thinking
but... im still pessimistic about our chances

[Thurnez Isa]

I'm told one of the universal marks of existence is impermanence. If they cling to this static notion, they won't last for much longer. That sort of thinking collapses from the bottom up.

Its only a matter of time.

i hope your right
but... so much of the ways human society as evolved is into marketing and advertising... and i have to say what you want about the ID or creation side they are actually pretty good marketing to a population who don't know any better

[Voodoo]

No one except philosophers and creationists, who don't really /understand/ what they are talking about, call it Darwinism. Okay?

the problem is Kai with the foundies is that the idea of science being in constant change and flux doesnt make sense to them. In their world they have a book that is definate (there is interpretations but definate on its validity) and so they look for the equivalent in the science world. And allthough darwins theories have evolved and developed over the years to a point that reading the "origin of species" as the definate book on evolution would be rediculas, they view that book as they would view their holy book, or as one creationist (can't remember the name) said "the grand creation myth of our society"
if you could put yourself in their shoes this way of looking at evolution as darwinism actually makes sense from their point of view... and then you can understand what we're up against, and if you think of how the 21'st century rolls along it may seem more and more that "reason over superstition" is a losing battle

I'm told one of the universal marks of existence is impermanence. If they cling to this static notion, they won't last for much longer. That sort of thinking collapses from the bottom up.

Its only a matter of time.

I just wish these intelligent design people would be more creative with their 'attacks'. It would bring more entertainment, at least. UFO conspiracy theory freaks are so much more funny.

Besides, everyone knows that our alien overlords planted man on earth.
 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The curious thing is that I don't think even laypeople usually use "Darwinism" to refer to evolution... it's usually used as shorthand for "survival of the fittest", which is different.