How Much Science Education Is Required To Believe In Creationism?

[orogenicman]

[quote=Pawporri;23875080]

Originally Posted by orogenicman

A theory is a hypothesis put forth as a basis for reasoning. It starts with a belief in something, with the aim of explaining a particular phenomena.

You are confused. A scientific theory is not a hypothesis.

My point is retrospective - What did the first alchemist (scientist) do to start the ball of knowledge and proven evidence rolling ? He relied on a belief in something, using scientific methodology, and attempted to prove his belief was a fact.

An alchemist is not a scientist because alchemy is not a science.

Correct, but what isn't true, Al Gore's spurious speculation on global warming or that the dabate is over?

Do you honestly believe that it makes sense to continue a rationale that has already been shown to be rather pointless as well as stupid?

A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts. Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and creative qualities of spirit.

Well, not one part of that is correct.

If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could only be executed by some entity of supermachine status.

Well not one part of that is correct, either. You're batting a 0 dude.

[Pawporri]

[quote=orogenicman;23875770][quote=Pawporri;23875080]

You are confused. A scientific theory is not a hypothesis.

When is the last time you read your dictionary, dude ?

An alchemist is not a scientist because alchemy is not a science.

History is not your strong forte, I see.

Do you honestly believe that it makes sense to continue a rationale that has already been shown to be rather pointless as well as stupid?

Agreed on both points. Gore's rationale is both pointless and stupid.

Well, not one part of that is correct.

Proof ?

Well not one part of that is correct, either. You're batting a 0 dude.[/

QUOTE]

Proof again? Logic fail.

[orogenicman]

When was the last time you took a class in the scientific method?

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Pawporri]

[quote=rifleman;23875700]Quite so. And yet, wait they do, decade upon century upon millennia.

I'll also add that I'd like to see your qualifications as a post-graduate level professional global climatologist. While Big Al did indeed exaggerate the situation for political gain, to then totally dismiss and deny the idea that the ever-growing 7.2+ BILLION of us, often now crowded into mass population centers will have to deal with the resulting tonnage of waste, products of combustion and heat generation is all entirely flawed?

Wow rifleman, do we all need PHD's to evaluate our climate ?
I never said we don't have problems. What I resent is that this politician walks into congress and tells us the debate is over. It has only just begun, IMO. Is Monsanto poisoning our crops and food supply - For sure, but where are the media on this one ?

That is truly ignorant, but worthy, yes, of a Rush Limbaugh Senior Bloviator's Award, but I know from past exposure to his supposed educated position that his overall knowledge and understanding of any level of ecology and consequences is minute. Whatever gets him his (recently noted..) $31M a year income... after all, he has to fuel his private jet with more hydorcarbons, which he claims are unlimited... and present no downstream consequences...)

We could both point fingers at hydrocarbon violaters, Al Gore included.

Originally Posted by Pawporri

[spoiler]

Factual measurements, yes. Ethical or moral measurements ?

[Pawporri]

[

QUOTE=rifleman;23875700]Quite so. And yet, wait they do, decade upon century upon millennia.

But I fail to see your point here now. So what? You do not need and in fact will only become confused by, education in the sciences to "Understand" and/or believe in the Creation fantasy. It captures literally no useful evidence other that of the personal faith of the believer. Nothing else.

[/quote]

I do not pooh-poo scientists and their contributions, so please don't lump me into that category. None of my posts state my belief in Creationism. There is some truth in those beliefs and not all science is infallible, IMO. I also believe a creator could have used an evolutionary plan. My point is, I agree with you it is a matter of personal faith, nothing else.....

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Pawporri

A theory is a hypothesis put forth as a basis for reasoning. It starts with a belief in something, with the aim of explaining a particular phenomena.

Wrong a scientific theory is backed by evidence, has been tested, reviewed and predictions can be made on it.

My point is retrospective - What did the first alchemist (scientist) do to start the ball of knowledge and proven evidence rolling ? He relied on a belief in something, using scientific methodology, and attempted to prove his belief was a fact.

Alchemy is not and never was a science.

Correct, but what isn't true, Al Gore's spurious speculation on global warming or that the dabate is over ?

Why bring Gore into this? He is a politician not a scientist.

A mechanistic philosophy of life and the universe cannot be scientific because science recognizes and deals only with materials and facts.

Correct

Philosophy is inevitably superscientific. man is a material fact of nature, but his life is a phenomenon which transcends the material levels of nature in that it exhibits the control attributes of mind and creative qualities of spirit.

You were correct above, so why contradict yourself? I don't care what you call it (superscientific) Science does NOT apply to what you call the spiritual.

If the universe were only material and man only a machine, there would be no science to embolden the scientist to postulate this mechanization of the universe. Machines cannot measure, classify nor evaluate themselves. Such a scientific piece of work could only be executed by some entity of supermachine status.

The universe is as far as all the evidence points purely material...If you think differently, I would look at whatever evidence you can produce...Regarding machines that measure Rifleman has already straightened you out on that issue.

[PanTerra]

Come on people, please fix your quote tags.

[rifleman]

Yeah: I'm no longer sure who is sayin' what? And what's with those "spoiler" thingees?

No, I have never said that everyone needs a PhD but one should be at least partially aware of the general rules, constraints and key elenments of the basic Scientific Method before you toss out all it's results.

To suggest to us that scientifically-based conclusions are all just some sort of glorified cr@pht-sheizze fest, full of baseless and wildly imagined hypotheses, is hardly being too rational, now is it?

G'night all!

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

No. I expect the gaps will be filled. The knowledge is simply not known yet. It is the intricacy where I find God.

Same thing really. Whether it is a gap in our actual knowledge, or a gap in our capability at comprehending the "complexity" or "intricacy" of it... it is still a gap into which one inserts god and then acts like this is "job done".

Complexity is, more often than not, an attribute of the observer, not the observed. Take calculus for example. I look at calculus and it is massively simple. My friends look at calculus and it is massively complex. Nothing has changed but the observer.

I too am wowed by the complexity of many things in this universe, but I realise that this complexity is a function of my ability to comprehend it. I am aware of my own limitations and see no reason to wheel in an entirely unevidenced and baseless less claim like "god" to fill that gap in my own capabilities.

"I find it complex... therefore god" is and remains a poor argument. At best.

[Pawporri]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Yeah: I'm no longer sure who is sayin' what? And what's with those "spoiler" thingees?

No, I have never said that everyone needs a PhD but one should be at least partially aware of the general rules, constraints and key elenments of the basic Scientific Method before you toss out all it's results.

To suggest to us that scientifically-based conclusions are all just some sort of glorified cr@pht-sheizze fest, full of baseless and wildly imagined hypotheses, is hardly being too rational, now is it?

G'night all!

We have a meeting of the minds.

I admit I am a novice with the spoiler tags, but will try to clean up my act.