Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right-wingers who believe the Earth is under 20,000 years old, where is your empirical evidence? The book with the talking donkey in it doesn't qualify as hard evidence either.
Yes it is, but then so is gravity a theory...I have a hard time believing that there are so many people particularly among the religious in the US that wear their ignorance as if it were a badge of honor.
When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative, but A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.
A theory is simply an explanation for some thing or event. Science has no monopoly on the term, and science may apply certain standards to itself, but not to others. You don't get to tell someone else that they can't formulate a theory about something unless they aggree to your definitions.
Furthermore, how has the "Big Bang Theory" been tested "repeatedly? Better yet, how has evolution theory, and particularly the part involving "speciation" been verified by repeated testing?
The answer is ... it has not. So does that mean that neither is a legitimate "scientific theory"?
I think both should be discussed, honestly, and neutrally, without the false claims that one disproves the other, when both or neither could be true.
There are thousands of years of history, with virtually every ancient civilization and people embracing some form of theological beliefs ... it's part of the human experience, and there is zero justification to censor that history.
By the same token, there are aspects of evolution which appear to be supported by evidence and observation .... just not to the extent of the claims being made which extend well beyond the evidence. I see no justification to censor that either.
If the purpose of education is indeed, education, censorship is education's enemy. If on the other hand the purpose of education is indoctrination, and teaching young people what to think, as opposed to how to think, then such censorship has purpose.
That's because throughout history, every civilization attributed Things They Couldn't Explain to deities.
Thunder? Must be gods!
Aurora Borealis? Must be gods!
Earthquakes? Must be gods!
Volcanic eruptions? Must be gods!
Let's toss the gods a virgin or two. Maybe then, they'll leave the rest of us alone.
The young earth creationist variety of Christianity doesn't offer an explanation. If it does, explain how God built a woman from a rib.
This is just linguistic trickery. You seem to be tricking yourself, and you don't realize it, and I do not know why.
First, the focus on "young earth" only addresses one group, and I don't believe it reflects the common understanding. So, set aside that tactic ... that is what it is ... a tactic.
As for the rib ... I would direct you to those expert in the realm of genetic engineering and cloning, as they would probably be better prepared to explain this mystery to you.
Perhap you have some vision of god taking a rib and setting it in a flower vase, watching a woman grow from it .. but I would suggest that if the account is true, then it was likely a very simplistic reference for some form of genetic engineering that ancient people were not sophisticated enough to understand. (and apparently that also carries over to modern peoples as well)
Sometimes I believe people ... religious and non-religious, want to erroneously apply literal meaning to biblical passages, when these may be analogies recounted by scribes having to refer to things they had no frame of reference for, so such stories were told in more simplified terms.
But you must admit that it is an interesting coincidence that women do have one more rib than men.
First, the focus on "young earth" only addresses one group, and I don't believe it reflects the common understanding. So, set aside that tactic ... that is what it is ... a tactic.
As for the rib ... I would direct you to those expert in the realm of genetic engineering and cloning, as they would probably be better prepared to explain this mystery to you.
Perhap you have some vision of god taking a rib and setting it in a flower vase, watching a woman grow from it .. but I would suggest that if the account is true, then it was likely a very simplistic reference for some form of genetic engineering that ancient people were not sophisticated enough to understand. (and apparently that also carries over to modern peoples as well)
Sometimes I believe people ... religious and non-religious, want to erroneously apply literal meaning to biblical passages, when these may be analogies recounted by scribes having to refer to things they had no frame of reference for, so such stories were told in more simplified terms.
But you must admit that it is an interesting coincidence that women do have one more rib than men.
Admit it? It's absolutely ridiculous! Men and women have the same number of ribs.
The fact that you believe this old wives' tale speaks volumes in terms of your education, not to mention your knowledge of the subject matter at hand.
Creation would be a supernatural event, and as of right now there is absolutely zero scientific evidence for the existence of the supernatural(God, angels, demons, ghosts, the devil, astrology, etc). If one thinks that there is merit in the belief of the supernatural( and a supernatural event) then that is their theological/philosophical/personal prerogative, but it is entirely outside the boundaries of science and scientific evidence.
Of course, because by very definition, "supernatural" means that which is outside the expectations and explanations of the laws of nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Moreover, what Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics scientists have observed is far closer to supernatural behavior than anything resembling hard matter science. So it's far from cut and dried as to the boundaries between natural and supernatural, and we have a glorious history of explaining in natural terms what once was considered supernatural.
For example, at the time Darwin postulated his theory , science would have dismissed as supernatural fantasy, the idea that people located at opposite sides of the globe, could talk to each other in real time, and virtually instantaneously, using hand held devices, aided by objects orbiting the earth. So what might be considered supernatural today, could become natural tomorrow.
What defines supernatural has way less to do with the phenomenon itself, and everything to do with how it compares to what has already been explained, and in turn, accepted as natural. More directly, the absense of evidence is not evidenve of absense, and just because something has yet to be explained, doesn't mean that there is no explanation, only that the explanation has not been discovered, yet.
The truth is, physical matter science is rather antiquated, and under a lot of pressure to explain the so-called natural world, and is failing miserably. The dogmatic consensus mainstream scientific community is losing credibilty faster than a drunk can lose money at a craps table.
Excellent points about what is considered "supernatural."
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz
That's because throughout history, every civilization attributed Things They Couldn't Explain to deities.
Thunder? Must be gods!
Aurora Borealis? Must be gods!
Earthquakes? Must be gods!
Volcanic eruptions? Must be gods!
Let's toss the gods a virgin or two. Maybe then, they'll leave the rest of us alone.
Yes, but of course previous civilizations were wrong about many things. That certainly doesn't prove there could not possibly be a god. I think that "god" is whatever that starting force was, the "something that came from nothing." My mind can't even grasp that something could come from nothing, so that starting force will always be "supernatural" to me.
That's because throughout history, every civilization attributed Things They Couldn't Explain to deities.
Thunder? Must be gods!
Aurora Borealis? Must be gods!
Earthquakes? Must be gods!
Volcanic eruptions? Must be gods!
Let's toss the gods a virgin or two. Maybe then, they'll leave the rest of us alone.
That's very true. And it hasn't changed much ... the desire to explain things, that is. I mean, doesn't that define modern science ... the overriding compulsion to explain everything in scientific terms?
And I hear this business about "scientific observation" so often, yet what gets completely lost on so many of you is the fact that our human senses can only detect 4-12% of what actually is known to exist? And that assumes we actually can get an accurate measure of what is there that our senses can't pick up. There could be much more ... but there is already a huge enough gap in our senses now to draw one pretty remarkable conclusion .... if we can detect only 12% of what is actually present .. that leaves a whopping 88% blind spot.
With that said, how silly is it for scientists to dismiss anything they can not scientifically observe as not there, or some figment of the human imagination? I say it's borderline idiocy, and way beyond simple scientific arrogance.
There are many mysteries for which science has no answers. So, for science to claim that a thing doesn't exist unless there is scientific evidence to prove it exists, is an extremely faulty way of thinking.
And I hear this business about "scientific observation" so often, yet what gets completely lost on so many of you is the fact that our human senses can only detect 4-12% of what actually is known to exist? And that assumes we actually can get an accurate measure of what is there that our senses can't pick up. There could be much more ... but there is already a huge enough gap in our senses now to draw one pretty remarkable conclusion .... if we can detect only 12% of what is actually present .. that leaves a whopping 88% blind spot.
Is that a fact like your 'Woman have one more rib than men do'?
You lost all credibility with that one.
First, the focus on "young earth" only addresses one group, and I don't believe it reflects the common understanding. So, set aside that tactic ... that is what it is ... a tactic.
My intention in focusing on young earth creationists was to avoid entering into a discussion about the likelihood of the existence of any god.
I see some religions as, perhaps even a good thing for some people, and tend to avoid wanting to create friction with people whose beliefs do not seem harmful to others. Amongst Christians, I mostly only worry about Biblical literalists, young earth creationists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and people who seem heavily motivated by fear of hellfire.
But no explanations of any god I have heard have answered any questions I've wondered about how the universe might have came into being. There's always the remaining question of: what created God, behind a long string of questions about what God is, how God works, and how we are aware of this. The proposal of an intelligent creator has always seemed to me to answer zero questions, and cause many more questions to be asked.
A God might exist, but its existence would explain nothing, I think. It would just add a lot more complexity to the universe. Therefore, we must look to other sources than God for determining why things happen, I think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
