Nope. I'm sorry you are wrong. All fossil evidence was magically dis-apperated by Jesus -- a young boy from Mexico.
Yes, that's the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from Young Earth Creationism -- that God's proper name is Coyote rather than Yahweh, because He is a mischievous trickster. The old so-and-so!
They found one of the pillars with all of human knowledge carved onto it. Then, they read it. I am curious as to how they "knew" the language.
The knowledge of how to translate it was right there on the pillar, dude. All they had to do was figure out how to read it, and it would tell them how to read it. <Head explodes>
|
Nope. I'm sorry you are wrong. All fossil evidence was magically dis-apperated by Jesus -- a young boy from Mexico.
The following is not meant to offend anyone.
This reminds me of something my brother once said. We were walking around town minding our own business when this lady walks in front of us and starts preaching about our souls.
At one point she says, "Give your souls to Jesus". To which my brother replied, "Now why would I give my soul to the drunk that lays brick for my brother-in-law." The look on her face was priceless and so we just walked on by.
Everything I have said tonight, I learned by reading the first three chapters of this book at the book store:
I should prolly go back and finish reading it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's really entertaining is to get the people who think the bible is the literal truth with no allegory to try to wrap their head around the Book of Revelations. Not only do you have buy a beast with seven heads and ten horns (possible with really creative genetic engineering) but you also have to buy a woman who somehow produces wine via sex, and in sufficient quantities to export to get the whole world drunk. Plus she has to have sex with all the kings of the world (and not just Sarkozy) and the tale gets even more improbable from there, at least if taken literally.
There are two basic ways for us humans to accept the validity of a statement.
One is belief. This means that you accept a statement because the source of that statement is above reproach, for example, handed down from God, or perhaps another agency you do not have the authority or right to question. Faith works by denying proof of invalidity.
The other is doubt, the opposite of faith. If you accept the view that you have as much right as anyone else to judge how the world works from your own observations, you will find that when you exclude things from your world-view that you have reasonable doubt about, what remains is a rather solid foundation. Of course, this requires investigation, thought and curiosity, but when a fact has been put through investigation, you can reliably use that piece of knowledge in your pursuits. The danger to science, or formalized doubt, is when people play the authority game. In science, nobody has enough authority so as not to be questioned, even though some try to claim that. Every scientific breakthrough in history has been made by shoving proof into the faces of people who claimed authority. So, no, science is never settled.
Another related issue is the question of Knowledge. In philosophical discourse, Knowledge is thought of as something we can claim to be absolutely certain about. That sort of knowledge can more or less only be claimed through methods of faith. Certainly science provides nothing of the sort. The fruits of science are statements where you can be more or less certain, and judging the probabilities of these statements is a big part of being a scientist. In short: Either you can accept the truth of various statements as is, without questioning them (faith), or you can fall back on a system of reasonable doubt, which gives you good results but no formal certainty.
When you discuss science with religious people, understand that they don't even mean the same thing you do when talking about knowledge as a concept.
|
Just to add my two copper's worth (which is definitely overpaying):
How science defines things:
Idea: A thought or notion. E.g. Do bricks float?
Hypothesis: A testable idea or notion. E.g. If bricks float, what would I see? If they don't, what would I see?
Note: You don't have to be able to carry out the experiment, you just have to be able to make the prediction at the moment. Quantum Theory makes lots of predictions that are unverifiable at the present state of technology, for example.
Theory: Explanation for an hypothesis. Usually needs to have most of it's hypotheses confirmed before it's accepted as a valid theory. E.g. Bricks don't float owing to the attraction between the bricks and earth.
Law: Theory that has been tested exhaustively and for which there is direct, testable and repeatable evidence to confirm.
Note: These definitions re mine, so may not be 100% correct.
How science works in theory:
1) Idea generates an Hypothesis.
2) Hypothesis is tested.
3) If test agrees with hypothesis, someone else tests it and repeats this stage. If it doesn't, the hypothesis is rejected and a new one come up with (which might be very similar to the old one with the addition of "Last time the equipment didn't work"). Return to stage 2.
4) After sufficient people have confirmed the hypothesis, it is accepted as being right. If this invalidates an existing theory, a new theory must be constructed to account for the latest set of evidence.
Quite often the theory is generated first, then results are looked at to see if it fits. This is especially true in areas where direct experiment is difficult, such as evolution or cosmology.
5) The science is settled. The theory matches the observations. Any new theory must at least make predictions as well as the old theory to be accepted. New observations that do not fit the theory can also cause an existing theory to be rejected.
In the real world, steps 3 and 5 are much harder to achieve, humans being human and therefor resistant to admitting they're wrong.
"The science is settled" is not a relevant statement. Science is never settled. You may act on your findings even if science is not settled, of course, but you will have to be on extraordinarily strong footing evidence-wise to reasonably do so.
|
|
Frankly I have no problem with religious belief, that is a very personal thing, that is part of a persons identity. peaceful constructive religion is good. However as creationism, and intelligent design are religion you have no right to push that into a science classroom to try and convert those minority of non religious, thats what your church outreaches are for.
Good point. People who mind their own business can believe in what they like. That's not a very controversial statement. However, in the democratic concept of a separation of church and state lies a very important distinction: Religions should never have political representation in and of themselves. While it's (naturally) okay that people who are religious vote for whatever they like, the churches themselves MUST remain out of political life. If they are given political power, free speech is the first thing they'll kill off. Same thing has happened everywhere. Eventually the churches will get a position where they have to approve all politicians running for high offices and the like, and soon enough, there will be a theocracy, not a democracy.
The idea of atheism is a political one, not one of faith in the nonexistence of the divine. The goal is to make sure the churches stay out of power, and that society remains free and open.
Strange that it should be so reviled, really. Would people really like a Guardian Council that had to approve every president wannabe?
|
|
One of the many reasons I no longer rely on the mass media for my information, nor watch television shows like CSI. Too much darned stupidity.
Or House. I remember one instance where they referred to "intercranial bleeding" rather than "intra-cranial bleeding" (Oh no! He's bleeding between his heads! What ever shall we do?)
In another episode, they didn't want to risk putting a patient in an MRI machine because he had a bullet in his brain, and lead is totally magnetic, right? [/sarcasm]
|
|
They found one of the pillars with all of human knowledge carved onto it. Then, they read it. I am curious as to how they "knew" the language.The knowledge of how to translate it was right there on the pillar, dude. All they had to do was figure out how to read it, and it would tell them how to read it. <Head explodes>
Where's Erich von Daniken when you need him, eh?
...
Oh, yeah. I forgot. He's probably off embezzling money somewhere.
Ok over the past few months I have met a surprising amount of people who really don't know what science is by definition. They seem completely ignorant of it's workings. So I have taken it upon myself to clarify.
Science- is the study of the natural world and of how it works.
I disagree with your definition. I believe it is missing something.
How about?:
Science- is the systematic study of the world and of how it works.
Much as people balk at it, science can (and often is) be legitimately applied to things like psychic phenomina, extra-terrestrials, and other supernatural events.
Science is a process and a way of thinking as much as anything else.
The british queen does have some quite spectacular powers, should she choose to use them. However: She is the head of the church for a very good reason: To control it. Ever since a certain Henry got mad at the catholic church, the entire point of the C of E has been to make sure the church is under firm control of the state, not the other way around. And as for the bishops in the house of Lords, I am sure you know better than I do that the house of Lords has only an advisory power, right?
And as for the growing fascism and surveillance hysteria in the UK, well, I doubt I need to say anything.
Science is a process, not a thing. Maybe a better word to describe it is method.
Anyways, there is a min INT score needed to even understand what science is, let alone be able to do science and/or contribute to its advancement.
This is why this debate rages on, what is science vs. what is religion. The people who argue for only (only) religion do not have this min INT score. Now, some people who argue for religion do have this min INT score, and understand what science is, yet just choose to ignore it. This is just find and dandy.
Some hard core science people really lament on any religion at all. Well, ok. That is their choice. Most people, above the min INT level, fall somewhere in between -- like myself. I like a healthy dose of scientific method and categorization in my world view, but fully realize there are somethings humans just do not know, and quite possible will never know, and I like to fall back on religion for these areas. (The hard core science people will say, well we just need to keep working hard for scientific breakthroughs - good for them.) I do this, because I like to relax now and then.
The really crazy people are the people with INT scores below the min required for comprehension of what the scientific method is, and its consequences. If they choose to argue only religion, then I understand their needs. But, when they say religion and science are the same in an attempt to marginalize science, then I feel sorry for them. Like I feel for a ship lost at sea full of people. Furthermore, the ones who argue for astrology and magic, etc. are just lost - but, not forgotten. Plus, they make me smile, and laugh. Hurray for these people.
Do you want me to give you the test?
|
|
The british queen does have some quite spectacular powers, should she choose to use them. However: She is the head of the church for a very good reason: To control it. Ever since a certain Henry got mad at the catholic church, the entire point of the C of E has been to make sure the church is under firm control of the state, not the other way around. And as for the bishops in the house of Lords, I am sure you know better than I do that the house of Lords has only an advisory power, right?
And as for the growing fascism and surveillance hysteria in the UK, well, I doubt I need to say anything.
Actually, the House of Lords has a revising role. They can change legislation. They can also initiate legislation. However, there is a piece of law that says that the House of Commons can overrule the House of Lords, but only after two or three attempts to get an agreed bill through both.
Of course, there are about 12 bishops and several hundred members of the House of Lords, so it's not as if their Graces have a lot of say.
|
|
Good point. People who mind their own business can believe in what they like. That's not a very controversial statement. However, in the democratic concept of a separation of church and state lies a very important distinction: Religions should never have political representation in and of themselves. While it's (naturally) okay that people who are religious vote for whatever they like, the churches themselves MUST remain out of political life.
Ah, but to have a truely open and free society, every citizen and group of citizens must have open and equal access to the government. When you boil it down to it's bare bones what is religion but a group of citizens with a shared belief system and cultural ideals. If we were to say that the Catholic Church, for example, has no right to petition the government or to seek political access, then we must turn around and say that a secular group such as the AARP, the NAACP, or the Athiest Humanist Association must also be blocked from seeking that access, for the very same reason.
Imagine the chilling effect on free speech if some groups of people had access to the government but others did not. If you read the writings of the American Founding Fathers, they were less concerned with the influnce religion would have on politics and more on the effect politics would have on religion. They also argued, as has the U.S. Supreme Court since then, that state sponsered athiesm would be just as harmful to society as state sponsored religion would.
Historically speaking, the danger of mixing politics and religion has not come fom theocractic governments, even in Europe during the Middle Ages true theocracies were rare, but the danger has come when a leader or government uses religion as a tool to enforce policy. Usually, at least according to the historical record, such leaders are not believers themselves but simply exploit religion for their own purposes. The Crusades are a prime example of this. Leaders like Baldwin and the Byzantine Emperor saw Christianity as a religious means to a political end. Based on the historical record, it is even unclear how much of the Pope's rhetoric he actually believed.
In conclusion, the idea that religion having access to government is somehow dangerous is a fallacy, so long as it does not have exclusive access, If it is treated as being on the same level as other NGOs and it's desires and recommendations given the same weight, then there is a balance. It is only when the scales are weighted too heavily towards either religion or secularism that societies and civilizations have suffered. The real trick here is to balance our desires to see our own personal agendas implemented by society with the need to do what is best for society as a whole, and not just ourselves individually.