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.
Well then? The correct approach in fact is to present both options without any biases, commentary or conclusions, and also teach the kids how to think those options through on their own. I.e: teach them the SNM, not it;'s conclusions. It's entirely up to them, once they know how, to review and accept or deny evidence. Science is NOT an individual with a list of correct answers folks. That's just how the terrified church portrays it.
Instead, jimmiej, you told them that only one of the options was correct, and thus that the other(s) are wrong. So, you've pre-biased them according to your personal but unsupportable beliefs.
Terrified of science? Hardly! Science explains God's methods.
I've read your thesis, and the thread you mention, but I'm not buying it...Sorry.
Perhaps you and rifle and the others will find this quantum physicist's explanations more accessible: Theoretical Quantum Physicist or if you prefer watching rather than reading:
The Quantum Activist. If you are not amenable to education . . . discussing anything with you is a pointless exercise.
Perhaps you and rifle and the others will find this quantum physicist's explanations more accessible: Theoretical Quantum Physicist or if you prefer watching rather than reading:
The Quantum Activist. If you are not amenable to education . . . discussing anything with you is a pointless exercise.
Yeah right.... Dr. Goswami is a revolutionary in a growing body of renegade scientists who in recent years have ventured into the domain of the spiritual in an attempt both to interpret the seemingly inexplicable findings of their experiments... and to validate their intuitions about the existence of a spiritual dimension of life.
Why does this seem so familiar? Oh wait I know, his method is the same as the religious method...Start with a conclusion, then work to validate it...
I already knew there were others who subscribe to your universal consciousness nonsense, but where is the evidence?
Yeah right.... Dr. Goswami is a revolutionary in a growing body of renegade scientists who in recent years have ventured into the domain of the spiritual in an attempt both to interpret the seemingly inexplicable findings of their experiments... and to validate their intuitions about the existence of a spiritual dimension of life.
Why does this seem so familiar? Oh wait I know, his method is the same as the religious method...Start with a conclusion, then work to validate it...
I already knew there were others who subscribe to your universal consciousness nonsense, but where is the evidence?
I believe you will find the evidence in the bold above . . . if you will relinquish your bias and intransigence long enough to actually check the experiments out. Of course, to quote rifle, you, he and the others are so "hidebound" that you wont even make the effort.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 03-05-2011 at 03:20 PM..
No. I would have preferred to have been assessed at what I would be good at, and then have a choice made for me, since I'm good at a number of things. That way, I wouldn't have wasted any time, and I could have started on that path when I was, say, 8 years old.
Have some peppermint schnnaps and drink to the Fatherland.
neither evolution nor creationism should be taught in a science class. They should both be taught in a philosophy/religion class. Science should be reserved for that which can be observed and tested. Evolution is predicated on the assumption that earth has existed for billions of years, which is based on the faith that the current method of dating the earth is accurate, which also assumes that the earth, as observed over the course of modern science, has behaved in the exact same why since it came to be. Science takes on faith, that nothing existed in the past that could drastically alter the findings of things in the present. What if there were particles that existed that back then, that have since disappeared, leaving no trace other than the fact that they drastically distort that which we can observe today? There is simply nothing pertaining to how things were, long before written documentation of things, that does not require a certain amount of faith. Simply put, science can only attempt explanations based on what is known, which naturally cannot account for things which are unknown. Modern science has absolutely zero knowledge about the ancient past, as supposedly no human being was there to document it. Science can formulate opinions, of how the past was based on the observations of the present, but that requires the assumption that things as they are observed today, are always they way they have been. Scientific inquiry into the past immediately assumes the non-existence of God, or at the very least, that if God exists, then He has not at any time in the pasted, done something to cause todays observable data to lack accuracy in dating the earth. I find it interesting when I here people want to acknowledge the existence of God but deny His ability to create all that we see in 6 literal days, only 6000 years ago. With regard to science and religion, I fail to see any meaningful contribution to society being made by science that is contrary to the Bible. We have better transportation, better medicine, better forms of communication, and many other advancements that I often wonder, "what do these advancements have to do with the age of the earth, how we got here, or anything to do with evolution"? There is no thought process on earth that cannot become a religion in some fashion, and there are certainly some, within the scientific community, that have turned mankind's understanding of things into a religion in and of itself. The scientific community is composed of human beings just like any other group of people, and while many are trustworthy and honest, they are not immune to egotism, jealousy, greed, and many other human emotions. They are not immune to the notion of suppressing truth to save face or not be "proven wrong".
neither evolution nor creationism should be taught in a science class. They should both be taught in a philosophy/religion class.
No, evolution has nothing to do with religion...It is science, and belongs in a science class, whereas creation probably should be taught in a class about mythology, if it is taught at all
Quote:
Science should be reserved for that which can be observed and tested. Evolution is predicated on the assumption that earth has existed for billions of years, which is based on the faith that the current method of dating the earth is accurate
Science IS reserved for what can be observed tested....Evolution has been observed many times and predictions have been made on what has been observed. The fact that the earth and universe have existed for billions of years is NOT an assumption, nor is the accuracy of today's dating methods, which are very accurate.
,
Quote:
which also assumes that the earth, as observed over the course of modern science, has behaved in the exact same why since it came to be.
No scientist makes such a statement, in fact we know that the earth and in fact the universe has and continues to undergo change.
Quote:
Science takes on faith, that nothing existed in the past that could drastically alter the findings of things in the present. What if there were particles that existed that back then, that have since disappeared, leaving no trace other than the fact that they drastically distort that which we can observe today? There is simply nothing pertaining to how things were, long before written documentation of things, that does not require a certain amount of faith. Simply put, science can only attempt explanations based on what is known, which naturally cannot account for things which are unknown.
Modern science has absolutely zero knowledge about the ancient past, as supposedly no human being was there to document it. Science can formulate opinions, of how the past was based on the observations of the present, but that requires the assumption that things as they are observed today, are always they way they have been. Scientific inquiry into the past immediately assumes the non-existence of God, or at the very least, that if God exists, then He has not at any time in the pasted, done something to cause todays observable data to lack accuracy in dating the earth.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but many scientific disciplines such as paleontology, astrophysics etc have learned much about the ancient past...No faith is required when you have the evidence. Science is not concerned with the existence or non existence of gods.
Quote:
I find it interesting when I here people want to acknowledge the existence of God but deny His ability to create all that we see in 6 literal days, only 6000 years ago.
This certainly belongs in mythology...The earth is billions of years old...
Quote:
With regard to science and religion, I fail to see any meaningful contribution to society being made by science that is contrary to the Bible. We have better transportation, better medicine, better forms of communication, and many other advancements that I often wonder, "what do these advancements have to do with the age of the earth, how we got here, or anything to do with evolution"?
Certainly some of these advancements have nothing to do with the science of evolution, but some, like many medical advances owe their success to the understanding of how life evolves.
Quote:
There is no thought process on earth that cannot become a religion in some fashion,
Science is not a merely a thought process, but a tool used in aid of discovering knowledge....It is NOT a religion.
Quote:
and there are certainly some, within the scientific community, that have turned mankind's understanding of things into a religion in and of itself.
I repeat, science is not, never was, nor ever will be a religion by any stretch of the imagination.
Quote:
The scientific community is composed of human beings just like any other group of people, and while many are trustworthy and honest, they are not immune to egotism, jealousy, greed, and many other human emotions. They are not immune to the notion of suppressing truth to save face or not be "proven wrong".
This is true, and is the reason that all scientific findings must be peer reviewed...Science is self policing.
No, evolution has nothing to do with religion...It is science, and belongs in a science class, whereas creation probably should be taught in a class about mythology, if it is taught at all
I will agree that Microevolution, as something that has been observed, should be discussed in a science class, but Macroevolution has never been observed. The assumption is made that since, microevolution is scientifically verifiable, and the earth is assumed to be billions of years old, then that is ample time for microevolution to become macroevolution. That whole concept is predicated on the assumption that the world is accurately dated at billions of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Science IS reserved for what can be observed tested....Evolution has been observed many times and predictions have been made on what has been observed. The fact that the earth and universe have existed for billions of years is NOT an assumption, nor is the accuracy of today's dating methods, which are very accurate.
How do you know that the methods used to date the earth are accurate? They are assumed as accurate, but unless someone was present at the start of it all to verify that things have kept the same rate of decay since the beginning, then science is simply making assumptions that the rates are the same. Columbus thought that the Eurasian landmass covered 270º of longitude and that the earth only had a circumference of about 17,000 nautical miles. Scientists don't KNOW how old the earth is, they assume how old it is based on what they observe today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
No scientist makes such a statement, in fact we know that the earth and in fact the universe has and continues to undergo change.
Well of course, because we can actually observe those changes today, but what I was actually referencing was that scientists take the rate of change they observe today, and assume that the rate has stayed relatively constant over millions/billions of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, but many scientific disciplines such as paleontology, astrophysics etc have learned much about the ancient past...No faith is required when you have the evidence. Science is not concerned with the existence or non existence of gods.
What I'm getting at is that when dealing with the ancient past, much of science has to take on faith that their methods for measuring are accurate. They won't admit that they are relying on faith but in the end that is what it is. Scientist show how much faith they have when they begin to assert their findings as fact. They are showing that they have faith that they have gathered enough evidence to call their assumptions fact. Just look at the way they date the earth. The scientific community has faith that they have gathered enough evidence to state that the earth is without a doubt billions of years old. What if the methods that scientists use to determine the age of the earth are completely wrong? What would that do to the theory of macroevolution? How much scientific data would have to be discarded?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
This certainly belongs in mythology...The earth is billions of years old...
You almost seem to have a religious conviction about that. I missed the news story about the tourist attraction, where people can go and see the date stamp on the earth. As I have stated, this assessment that the earth is billions of years old, requires you to have faith that the methods used to date the earth are accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Certainly some of these advancements have nothing to do with the science of evolution, but some, like many medical advances owe their success to the understanding of how life evolves.
I'll agree with you on that as it pertains to microevolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Science is not a merely a thought process, but a tool used in aid of discovering knowledge....It is NOT a religion.
I repeat, science is not, never was, nor ever will be a religion by any stretch of the imagination.
And you seem to have this religious faith that the tool of science is always properly used by altruistic and noble individuals, who never err in their quest for knowledge, except when they do err and then they are noble and forthcoming and honorable in their acknowledgement of their errors. Most of the atheists I have dealt with have an amazing amount of reverence for the scientific process and those that follow it as though it is a perfect process, because it doesn't claim to be perfect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
This is true, and is the reason that all scientific findings must be peer reviewed...Science is self policing.
Right, because that always happens doesn't it. Scientific findings never get dismissed or swept under the rug because they are unpopular or because they would undo so many long established ideas and ruin careers based on those ideas. There is that reverence, once again, that science can do no wrong. That it is beyond corruption because of its self policing nature.
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.
