Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 17:13:21 GMT -5
the scientist arrives at the limits of human knowledge and says "We understand how some things work, we don't know other things". That's scientific honesty. The religious arrives at the limits of human knowledge and says, "We know how God did some things, we don't know how God did the rest". That's religious faith. There's no dishonor in either approach, in my opinion. The dishonor comes when the scientists use faith (particularly in a specific God, the belief in which ties them to a host of disproven natural claims) in their science. Likewise, dishonor comes when the religious use their book as a conclusion, and observational science is only allowed to be viewed from that lens. As much as the new atheists would suggest otherwise, I still agree with Gould that faith and reason are non-overlapping magisteria. They use different methods to answer fundamentally different questions: Reason to answer "What, when, where, how?" and Faith to answer "Why?" I’m sure you understand there are few, if any, totally unbiased “scientists”. The religion of materialism is thousands of years old and has a long list of zealots. That puzzles me I suppose. Naturalism in science allows people of different backgrounds and beliefs to actually make progress. The zealots in science tend to discover and invent things that make our lives better, so I suppose scientific zealots aren't a huge threat to me. Religious zealots have a long and rich history of doing supreme evil, at the direction of 1000 different untestable, unverifiable Gods. Naturalistic science can be pursued religiously, I suppose...? But it isn't by any conceivable definition a religion itself. Just for fun though, would science being a religion make it less credible? 😄 Edit: I don't think there could be any truly unbiased scientist. You're right. Scientists are people, and the best scientist will be practicing through their own bias. However, bias is something that science contains internal mechanisms to mitigate as much as possible. Things like transparency of data, and peer review, and experiments with standardized variables. In religion, would it be fair to say that bias towards a certain God is actually the expected and celebrated thing?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 11, 2019 17:22:54 GMT -5
the scientist arrives at the limits of human knowledge and says "We understand how some things work, we don't know other things". That's scientific honesty. The religious arrives at the limits of human knowledge and says, "We know how God did some things, we don't know how God did the rest". That's religious faith. There's no dishonor in either approach, in my opinion. The dishonor comes when the scientists use faith (particularly in a specific God, the belief in which ties them to a host of disproven natural claims) in their science. Likewise, dishonor comes when the religious use their book as a conclusion, and observational science is only allowed to be viewed from that lens. As much as the new atheists would suggest otherwise, I still agree with Gould that faith and reason are non-overlapping magisteria. They use different methods to answer fundamentally different questions: Reason to answer "What, when, where, how?" and Faith to answer "Why?" I’m sure you understand there are few, if any, totally unbiased “scientists”. The religion of materialism is thousands of years old and has a long list of zealots. Ed, -would you provide the definitions of the words: “scientists”, religion, materialism and zealots?
I am a bit confused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 17:24:34 GMT -5
Also something I wonder. Science is often given the label As being a religion... does this mean that's any christians who are scientists are serving two Gods? It would be like a Christian who goes to work and uses the pillars of Islam to do their job. That is if science is a religion. There's a whole lot of polytheists out there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 17:25:07 GMT -5
I’m sure you understand there are few, if any, totally unbiased “scientists”. The religion of materialism is thousands of years old and has a long list of zealots. Ed, -would you provide the definitions of the words: “scientists”, religion, materialism and zealots?
I am a bit confused. me too.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2019 10:10:34 GMT -5
I’m sure you understand there are few, if any, totally unbiased “scientists”. The religion of materialism is thousands of years old and has a long list of zealots. You are 100% correct. The difference is that when scientists present a finding it is open for examination by anyone who wishes to and if they cannot defend their findings that are re-examined and modified as required by the existing data. There is no 'Holy Word" that cannot be questioned. When creationists claim that the grand canyon was formed in a short time based on their observations from a mini canyon at Mt St Helens the actual data from the grand canyon shows their claim is a total farce.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 13:42:47 GMT -5
I’m sure you understand there are few, if any, totally unbiased “scientists”. The religion of materialism is thousands of years old and has a long list of zealots. You are 100% correct. The difference is that when scientists present a finding it is open for examination by anyone who wishes to and if they cannot defend their findings that are re-examined and modified as required by the existing data. There is no 'Holy Word" that cannot be questioned. When creationists claim that the grand canyon was formed in a short time based on their observations from a mini canyon at Mt St Helens the actual data from the grand canyon shows their claim is a total farce. Geology and the Global Flood www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G00jZQDXr8This vid is presented by a biologist. Try to refute at least one point of his evidences rational – and contrary to your expressed religious bias, the whole video is open for public examination – even by you. But I suspect that your bias will not allow you to do much of an examination of his evidence – so go head on er and just call the evidence “farce” while others can check you out by actually examining his evidence.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2019 14:12:26 GMT -5
Replies may found in The Trash Heap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 16:08:54 GMT -5
You are 100% correct. The difference is that when scientists present a finding it is open for examination by anyone who wishes to and if they cannot defend their findings that are re-examined and modified as required by the existing data. There is no 'Holy Word" that cannot be questioned. When creationists claim that the grand canyon was formed in a short time based on their observations from a mini canyon at Mt St Helens the actual data from the grand canyon shows their claim is a total farce. Geology and the Global Flood www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G00jZQDXr8This vid is presented by a biologist. Try to refute at least one point of his evidences rational – and contrary to your expressed religious bias, the whole video is open for public examination – even by you. But I suspect that your bias will not allow you to do much of an examination of his evidence – so go head on er and just call the evidence “farce” while others can check you out by actually examining his evidence. IF the whole video is open for public examination, then why does it say "Comments Turned Off" at the bottom? Are they afraid that a competent geologist might comment on it?
A few scientists wrote a book about this. A summary article can be found here. biologos.org/articles/flood-geology-and-the-grand-canyon-what-does-the-evidence-really-say It's bizarre they felt compelled to write it... a fellow named Sir Charles Lyell wrote a similar treatise called Principles of Geology which to educated minds overturned the Catastophism fairly quickly. It's no surprise that Lyell's work hasn't reached Creationists yet though. He after all published it fairly recently in 1830.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 12, 2019 16:23:51 GMT -5
Thank God the culture in the free world is not built on this materialistic-based ignorance. Darwin Sign - Ohio
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 12, 2019 16:29:52 GMT -5
"It's no surprise that Lyell's work hasn't reached Creationists yet though. He after all published it fairly recently in 1830. " So arrogant. You are so smart like, and we are all so dumb. We can only hope to someday have an "educated" mind like you. “I was told over and over that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” –Lynn Margulis My guess, you have to actually look for evidence. Try it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 16:58:06 GMT -5
"It's no surprise that Lyell's work hasn't reached Creationists yet though. He after all published it fairly recently in 1830. " So arrogant. You are so smart like, and we are all so dumb. We can only hope to someday have an "educated" mind like you. “I was told over and over that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.” –Lynn Margulis My guess, you have to actually look for evidence. Try it. Smart, no. Educated, yes. I know my rough IQ, and I'm most certainly no Einstein! But I have spent a great deal of time educating myself. My default position was actually creationism (by upbringing), and it didn't please me at all to notice that the evidence against it, and for evolution, was so compelling. However, I accepted the evidence, and adjusted my worldview. Trust me, I would've been delighted (as would Darwin and all others since him) if the evidence pointed to a literal Genesis account of creation, since it would validate our pre-existing beliefs. Darwin himself became a nervous wreck and chronic hypochondriac, and couldn't even present his own research (relying on a friend). He started off merely an enthusiastic naturalist.
To your second point, Lynn Margulis was a brilliant scientist. Her name is synonymous with the Endosymbiotic Theory (though not the first, certainly the clearest voice on it). She sadly died in 2011, 7 years before the paper I'm linking here was published, and only shortly after the initial experiments by Richard Lenski were coming to fruition. She didn't subscribe to neo-Darwinism, and downplayed the basic Mendelian principles in evolutionary change.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2019 17:05:42 GMT -5
Suzan Mazur, author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology "It is not enough that British biologist Richard Dawkins‘ foreign interference promoting Darwinian natural selection in America’s schools via TIES and NGSS has infected school systems in 26 US states. Running out of places to spread scientifically discredited natural selection and selfish gene dogma—on January 6-18, 2020, Dawkins will attempt to further introduce the malaise to traditional villages along Southeast Asia’s Mekong River." Suzan Mazur, “The New Southeast Asia Invasion: Dawkins, Krauss & Uncle Sam” at Oscillations Not only that, but—of all people—Larry Krauss (who “doesn’t feel tarnished” by his relationship with the late Jeffrey Epstein) is part of the organizing committee. Krauss organized science conferences for Epstein on Epstein’s “Isle of Babes.” Epstein supported Krauss’ work during his time at Arizona State University. No wonder he's been recently fired from so many roles. But you really must read the rest for yourself at Oscillations. I also benefited from Epstein's charity. The suite of rooms in the hospital where I get treatment were a gift from Epstein. And no, I don't feel tarnished.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2019 17:15:05 GMT -5
Replies to this post may be found in The Trash Heap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 17:16:54 GMT -5
Thank God the culture in the free world is not built on this materialistic-based ignorance. Darwin Sign - OhioJust because something is factually correct doesn't make it the right and moral thing to do. Whenever pure Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' and Malthusian 'struggle for existence' are implemented by humans, catastrophic things occur. The case for the holocaust by Hitler himself was predicated on Darwinian principles, and weeding out the weak and lesser for the 'good of the population' was the rationale presented to the doctors for the euthanasia principle. Many went insane, or became chronic drug abusers because it was so contemptible. Robert J. Lifton wrote a book called The Nazi Doctors, which details how the Third Reich used Darwinian principles to accomplish and justify their deeds. (incidentally, the Nazis didn't believe in common descent, because it would've meant that they shared a common ancestor with the 'inferior races' They did take to the survival of the fittest mentality however).
In the states, "Social Darwinism" played out in the laissez-faire guilded age of tycoons and paupers, and the eugenics programs instituted by the government. Also in "Better Baby Competitions" at state fairs. If you view the economic engine as an individual, it definitely became stronger. However, Darwinian evolution is predicated on the overproduction and expendable nature of offspring. So, the population becoming 'more healthy' comes at the cost of countless individuals. We combine it now with regulations and safety nets, which seems to me to form the basis between the differences between our two political parties.
Not even for an instant do I think that unfettered Darwinism produces an ideal social structure. This however doesn't mean that it doesn't accurately explain how we and other species around us came to be, and came to exhibit the traits we do possess.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 12, 2019 17:30:01 GMT -5
That's an interesting post.
What...who the hell are we?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Dec 12, 2019 18:17:34 GMT -5
Replies to this post may be found in The Trash Heap. So, I did figer it out cwreckly, and I doubt anyone will go hunting for your " The Trash Heap" when they can examine the evidence and YOU right here. (Final comp. "a few seconds ago") Thanks rational 😊
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Dec 12, 2019 18:20:38 GMT -5
Replies to this post may be found in The Trash Heap. So, I did figer it out cwreckly, and I doubt anyone will go hunting for your "The Trash Heap" when they can examine the evidence and YOU right here. But thanks for a second nothing reply to the evidence - that will encourage anyone to avoid hunting for your "The Trash Heap" just to try to figer out what you consider as a "response." (Final comp. "a few seconds ago")
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Dec 12, 2019 19:17:32 GMT -5
Replies to this post may be found in The Trash Heap. So, I did figer it out creckly, and I doubt anyone will go hunting for your " The Trash Heap" when they can examine the evidence and YOU right here. But thanks for a second merely biased reply to the evidence - that will encourage anyone to avoid hunting for your " The Trash Heap" just to try to figer out what you consider a "reply" to be. (Final comp. "a few seconds ago") Are you finished yet @gratu !!!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 12, 2019 19:24:31 GMT -5
So, I did figer it out creckly, and I doubt anyone will go hunting for your " The Trash Heap" when they can examine the evidence and YOU right here. But thanks for a second merely biased reply to the evidence - that will encourage anyone to avoid hunting for your " The Trash Heap" just to try to figer out what you consider a "reply" to be. (Final comp. "a few seconds ago") Are you finished yet @gratu !!! When he gets dizzy enough he'll crack his head in a corner and knock himself out.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Dec 12, 2019 20:05:32 GMT -5
"When he gets dizzy enough he'll crack his head in a corner and knock himself out" -.RIGHT - you would surely know by experience Bob? And for the other "Are you frustrated yet gratu?" - dream on - I didn't like being accused of changing my posts while I was in process of composing my posts, so now I delete what the one sitting on the edge of her chair ready to grab it EARLY, continue composing, and poist only the final composition - whether or not that frustrates the one sitting on the edge of her chair ready to GRAB every change in the process oif composition of it. The time stamps on hers tell the tale rather nicely, as does her failure to quote the final composition - I am delighted with the usual TMB display of gang bang on the atheist/evolutionist team on here. - Now T, GRAB it fast because it might disappear on you soon - or it might STILL be in composition such that the next post of it is the final one.. (Final comp. "a few seconds ago") Thanks for the entertainment @gratu !!!
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Dec 12, 2019 20:18:57 GMT -5
Are you finished yet @gratu !!! Nope - long as you wanna GRAB it early I can continue composing, but you have made your point - Grab this one fast too because it might disappear on you too. Careful though, sitting on the edge of your chair ready to pounce on my posts early could make both your legs go to sleep such that you take a fall as soon as you stand up. (Final comp. "a few secomds ago") 😜😛😃😳😛😜
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 20:20:02 GMT -5
That's an interesting post. What...who the hell are we? Good question.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2019 20:36:19 GMT -5
Thank God the culture in the free world is not built on this materialistic-based ignorance. Darwin Sign - Ohio Until I have a more detailed understanding of why you think about this sign, Darwin Sign - Ohio, -if you & know who put up the sign, I have trouble understanding why you posted it. ??
BTW, I did look at your link Darwin Sign - Ohio & saw the various other picture & comments under them.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2019 20:37:13 GMT -5
Response in the trash heap.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2019 20:49:25 GMT -5
Is evolution pseudoscience? (the subject of the thread)by Mark Johansen The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories.1 The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’. Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list. Let’s look at how evolution exhibits the fallacies listed by these self-proclaimed skeptics, with just one example of each. (see the rest at the link bel 10 Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequatEvolutionists claim that their theory is science, but the National Center for Science Education, which is an anti-creationist lobbying group, admits that there’s a problem: ‘The failure of many students to understand and accept the fact of evolution is often a consequence of the naïve views they hold of the nature of science … . According to this naïve view, the key to the unique success of science at producing true knowledge is “The Scientific Method”, which, on the standard account, involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and then going into the laboratory to perform the crucial experiment. … In contrast, the work of many evolutionary biologists involves the reconstruction of the past. The methods they use do not conform to the standard view of “The Scientific Method”.’14 So if you can’t actually prove your theory using the scientific method, which actually uses controlled experiment, as distinct from plausible story telling, simply declare that only ‘naïve’ people think that the scientific method has anything to do with ‘science’. Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences—astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever—would meet so many.
Creation.comhttps://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience Gratu, -running out of material? Isn't this about the 3rd time you have posted this same one?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2019 21:04:30 GMT -5
idiocy recorded in trash heap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2019 21:44:19 GMT -5
Are you finished yet @gratu !!! When he gets dizzy enough he'll crack his head in a corner and knock himself out. Funny thing how the solution may well be the source of the problem. Kind of like drinking to forget about your drinking problem.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Dec 12, 2019 21:47:49 GMT -5
Gratu, -running out of material? Isn't this about the 3rd time you have posted this same one? You mean you actually read them?
|
|