You cannot disprove God with science. You cannot disprove science with God.
You cannot worship science like it's God. You cannot study God like it's science.
And, when your religion becomes science, you cannot make your science God (i.e. Nature operates just fine without divine intervention AND God is real to some, most even, no matter what logical arguments you use to disprove Bible verses written 2000 years ago).
If you can separate your God from your science, you can see that both can be "true" (and you have to know what that means).
Does this mean anything?
Creationism vs. Darwinism. They're both too into their own philosophy and fail to see that they too might be wrong.
Please note that Darwin does not seek to disprove God's existence, and please note that Evolution says nothing about God.
Evolution may run counter to some creation stories, but that usually happens when science runs into religion.
The fact that some militant atheists use evolution stems from the initial attack by Dogmatic Xtians against Evolution.
So, I repeat: SCIENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD.
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2008, 03:54:31 PM
Please note that Darwin does not seek to disprove God's existence, and please note that Evolution says nothing about God.
Evolution may run counter to some creation stories, but that usually happens when science runs into religion.
The fact that some militant atheists use evolution stems from the initial attack by Dogmatic Xtians against Evolution.
So, I repeat: SCIENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD.
Ty LMNO. You agree with the original post in its entirety (the PEOPLE who "believe" in their truth are wrong; the science/faith are ideas more than absolute reality). Maybe I should put special punctuation in the OP so that people who do understand these things also understand I'm saying the same thing. My bad! (but now I know.. and "knowing is half the battle." ughhhhhh)
wait one minute booty are you saying science is an "Ideal"?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 10, 2008, 01:09:19 AM
wait one minute booty are you saying science is an "Ideal"?
Yes. Sort of. Believing in what is "real" or "generally true" is sometimes scientific (in this case, taking science out of religion - that is, not deconstructing the Bible with bullet points), and is therefore more likely to be "right" in the sense that is in Nature (outside of you), and in that sense, is most certainly an ideal (in that you may believe it is a noble thing to do).
The alternative is believing what you want, which is uh...yeah.
Ok, this comment made no sense (I confused the first clause and the second).
Let me rephrase: Science is an ideal because we believe (that is a key thing - you cannot just have no beliefs. Try it and see what happens) truth is superior to lies. Science systematically erodes the inconsistencies within theories (in the case I made, it is used to destroy religion - and thus, science has kind of become a religion because we believe it is the "best"), and, therefore, smooths them out over time (hopefully). We can do better; just not yet (or anytime soon, I'm guessing). So, in that sense, yes, scientific thinking is idealistic.
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
the thing is when religion is looked at rationally most of then don't hold any water
expecially if you look at it in a historical context
rationally trying to explain what ACTUALLY makes the validity of most religious believes very muddy
Quote from: BootyBay on July 10, 2008, 01:47:24 AM
Let me rephrase: Science is an ideal because we believe truth is superior to lies.
i could understand this arguement in terms of "idealism"
Quote from: BootyBay on July 06, 2008, 11:21:26 PMYou cannot disprove God with science.
possibly.
QuoteYou cannot disprove science with God.
yes you can.
QuoteYou cannot worship science like it's God.
yes you can.
QuoteYou cannot study God like it's science.
yes you can.
QuoteAnd, when your religion becomes science, you cannot make your science God (i.e. Nature operates just fine without divine intervention AND God is real to some, most even, no matter what logical arguments you use to disprove Bible verses written 2000 years ago).
If you can separate your God from your science, you can see that both can be "true" (and you have to know what that means).
what
Science is a process. It is a method. It is a verb.
Booty, stop treating it like a noun.
But, if thats true, then how does one "science"?
God is an expletive
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 10, 2008, 01:54:50 AM
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.
Quote from: LMNO on July 10, 2008, 05:04:28 PM
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).
Quote from: triple zero on July 10, 2008, 03:01:29 PM
Quote from: BootyBay on July 06, 2008, 11:21:26 PMYou 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.
like disproving the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg)
Quote from: Rev. Voodoo on July 11, 2008, 04:41:26 AM
like disproving the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg)
RAmen!
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on July 10, 2008, 09:23:16 PM
But, if thats true, then how does one "science"?
Hypothesis, experiment, observe, modify hypothesis.
Repeat as necessary.
Spag.
Quote from: BootyBay on July 08, 2008, 04:59:00 AM
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?
Quote from: Kai on July 11, 2008, 07:15:23 PM
Quote from: BootyBay on July 08, 2008, 04:59:00 AM
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?
:mittens:
Quote from: Kai on July 11, 2008, 07:15:23 PM
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
:sad:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 11, 2008, 07:35:17 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 11, 2008, 07:15:23 PM
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
:sad:
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.
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
Quote from: Kai on July 11, 2008, 07:40:59 PM
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
:sad:
Quote from: Kai on July 11, 2008, 07:40:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 11, 2008, 07:35:17 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 11, 2008, 07:15:23 PM
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
:sad:
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.
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.