Science-Religion. Which wins?

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

I have done, let’s say 45 labs in my high school career. 45/45 of those labs have gone just how the teacher told me they would.

</p>

<p>That’s ********.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

If everything revolved around the earth daily, why would there be differences in the stars at the same time each night?

</p>

<p>If the sun had a different orbital period than the stars, that would make sense. It was problems like stellar parallax and retrograde motion of planets that finally spelled the end of Geocentricism.</p>

<p>But I’m not going to continue this argument, because if I do Adenine will start saying I’m a Geocentric believer on top of everything else :P.</p>

<p>I do think that a rational observer, having only the naked eye with which to make observations, would probably conclude that the earth was fixed. Without advanced equipment most of the flaws in the geocentric theory are too small to be observed.</p>

<p>For that matter, maybe to earth IS fixed, and the whole universe revolves around it… Actually, I think I’M the fixed point in the universe. All movement is relative to me. :P</p>

[Sithis]

<p>

I do think that a rational observer, having only the naked eye with which to make observations

</p>

<p>Well obviously much of scientific theory will be inadequate if having to observe something with only the naked eye is one of your stipulations. :P</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ That was what we had to work with up until a few hundred years ago. The ancients still managed to discover a vast amount of useful science, including an astronomical model that was sufficient to calculate the locations at any given time of all the celestial bodies visible to them.</p>

<p>When more precise observations were possible, a more precise model was needed.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>^ Well, I don’t think anyone’s criticizing the theories of scientists who lived hundreds of years ago and saying “Oh, those people were soooo unmodern in their scientific observations. Stupid gits didn’t even use satellite telescopes!” That would be pointless. I was talking about more modern scientific ideas.</p>

[INVENIAMVIAM]

<p>Disregard everything MosbyMarion says, he s… nevermind.</p>

[Adenine]

<p>

You just made this all up though, because this is what you want to believe about people who deny modern evolutionary theory. By the way, people who aren’t aware of evolution can’t “reject” it.

</p>

<p>No, I think that covers it well. If you’ve been shown the evidence and still choose an absurd myth written out of ignorance, that’s pretty senseless for this day and age.</p>

<p>

Creationists know their conclusion ahead of time and use deceitful arguments to “support” it (ex. “everything is too complex and orderly to be evolved”), ignore the evidence or lie about it.

</p>

<p>Again, you are just psychologizing people in a way that confirms what you want to believe about them. You simply refuse to believe that a rational person whose opinion is “untainted” by religious upbrining could not accept evolutionary theory.

</p>

<p>Its not about what I want to believe about them, its how they operate when someone tries to challenge their beliefs. They don’t have any proof that life was “created” by their god – its a conclusion they formed ahead of time. That mutation can only cause destruction or that beneficial mutations can’t produce new species is just wrong and deceitful. And if they lose a particular argument, they’ll go off and harp about some other part of biology that they don’t understand. </p>

<p>And how can you call someone “rational” if they blatantly ignore or twist the evidence supporting evolution to the point where their conclusion is that “it didn’t happen”? </p>

<p>

Well, they could just be saying “I find X theory inadequate so I will go with Y theory rather than engage in some sort of nihilism”

</p>

<p>Since when does accepting evolution mean “engag[ing] in some sort of nihilism”? That train of thought reminds me of the old asinine myth that teaching people that they came from monkeys will make them act like monkeys. </p>

<p>

Some statistic you made up…how lovely. Also, one could potentially believe that a god created all life while simultaneously believing in some form of evolution.

</p>

<p>For future reference, whenever you see “99.999…%” it means “almost always.” Again, no need to get so sarcastic about things. About your second sentence, that’s true but there’s still zero evidence of that being true and plenty of experiments and other evidence (ex. Stanley-Miller) to flat-out contradict that. </p>

<p>

Well, whether something is evidenced or not depends on what your idea and interpretation of “evidence” is.

</p>

<p>Explaining some natural phenomenon by saying “god did it” isn’t “evidence” (things and procedures used to demonstrate the truth of an assertion) at all.</p>

<p>

This is also an opinion and a statement about ethics.

</p>

<p>How is that relevant? If something is wrong, doesn’t match the evidence or I just don’t agree with it there’s nothing wrong with challenging it. My point was that challenging an idea has nothing to do with “suppressing alternatives.” Creationism is rarely taught in science classes because there is NO evidence of it having one thing going for it scientifically, not because people want to “suppress” it. Maybe if it had a decent argument other people would take their BS seriously. But it doesn’t have a snowflakes chance in hell of passing peer review. </p>

<p>If I started a cult and we said that 10 million fairies were inside of every human being and that they provide the energy to make the heart beat, should they give in to my pathetic demands to teach that nonsense so I don’t attack them with the bull claim of “supressing alternatives”? Hell no. They’d be better off locking my @$$ up in a mental ward. </p>

<p>

@MosbyMarion

This is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the actions of many, if not most, professed Atheists show them to actually be “antitheists”.

</p>

<p>I think many that keep themselves free from religion are just annoyed by people who claim that their god and religion are somehow valid and that religious dogma should somehow take some time out of real science in science classrooms. Particularly annoying are those who feel the right to lie about scientific facts and mislead other people to give their religious garbage any credibility. </p>

<p>And criticizing religion and opposing it isn’t “antitheism.” You just think that way because, like many people, you believe that religion has some weird protection about it where it can’t be challenged no matter how asinine, unevidenced, misleading or corrupted it can become. </p>

<p>

1: Statement: Atheism is true.</p>

<p>2: If Atheism is true, there is no such thing as choice.</p>

<p>3: If there is no such thing as choice, then there is no point in morals.</p>

<p>4: All humans (at least that I know of) do in fact have some sense of morals.</p>

<p>5: Therefore, all humans (at least that I know of) are not acting in accordance with statement #1.

</p>

<p>This has ZERO sense of clear thinking. If there is no god, there wouldn’t be any choice? That’s completely ignorant. Do you have any slight idea of how the human brain works? Or any brain for that matter? It’s about the firing of specific groups of neurons, which are cells that transfer information electrochemically. You can’t just say “God gave people the ability to reason.” Where’s the proof in that? Where’s the proof in your god for that matter? I can agree with 3. 4 is wrong as well. What about infants/very young children, the psychotic and mentally disabled? Thats far from “all humans.” This “proof” is complete nonsense.</p>

<p>

I labeled myself as a fundamentalist Christian, not a fundamentalist Creationist.

</p>

<p>My point is that you’re a fundamentalist/creationist/anti-evolution/hyperreligious person.</p>

<p>

Saying a human made a choice by physical reactions in their brains is like saying a block made a choice to fall instead of fly upward when dropped.</p>

<p>The only way to resolve this is for there to actually be some type of supernatural entity, that is able to make choices, and that is able to influence the physical world according to those choices.

</p>

<p>This is just philosophical garbage. You keep on harping about this but its not even intelligent – its just anti-scientific junk. Thoughts form from the activity of sets of neurons. It would be nice if you actually read something scientific about the brain rather than making asinine arguments from your own lack of knowledge. </p>

<p>[How</a> the Brain Works](<a href=“http://www.tbiguide.com/howbrainworks.html]How”>How the Brain Works)</p>

<p>[How</a> the brain works - Google Books](<a href=“How the Brain Works - Mark Wm. Dubin - Google Books”>How the Brain Works - Mark Wm. Dubin - Google Books)</p>

<p>

Before any of that has any weight, you have to show that I in fact am basing my beliefs on lies, deceptions, and unflinching faith in a holy book.

</p>

<p>It’s a lie because you make arguments that deliberately go against what the evidence shows or make factually wrong statements (ex. Its impossible organisms properly evolve by mutation).</p>

<p>[Examples</a> of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection](<a href=“http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html]Examples”>http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html)</p>

<p>

Actually, Economics is a science. It takes knowledge about the interactions of people and businesses and then tries to condense them into theories, such as Capitalism, which can be used to predict future events. If these theories fail to predict events successfully, then they must be modified or rejected.

</p>

<p>Economics is a social “science” meaning a “branch of knowledge.” It’s not a natural science like biology, chemistry, physics, etc. </p>

<p>

Actually, it is. You don’t know that the earth revolves around the sun. You have faith that it is true, based on what others have told you. In this case, it is exceptionally well-justified faith.

</p>

<p>This is wrong. I don’t have “faith” that it goes around the sun. It isn’t “belief w/o evidence.” Its because I am aware of the scientific evidence supporting it. Its a totally different concept than faith.</p>

<p>

Ok then. But there’s very little justification to argue and fight for nothing.

</p>

<p>Just because something doesn’t have to have a label (science, religion, philosophy) etc.) doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. Not believing in purple pixies is not “fighting over nothing” and it doesn’t have to be put under some academic field.</p>

<p>

Well, if some religions are true, then atheists will be punished in the afterlife. But they will have harmed no one but themselves by bringing this punishment on themselves.

</p>

<p>Because its a crime to not be gullible? If I read a book of fairy tales and I don’t agree with it is it a crime to disagree with it no matter how hard I try to believe the nonsense? Mifune talked about this earlier, but what god would give you a brain to think and then condemn you for expressing honest thoughts?</p>

<p>And what if you’re worshipping the wrong god and choosing the wrong religion? There’s an infinite number of possible religions and gods. </p>

<p>

Christianity didn’t cause the Inquisition. It is not supported in any way by the Bible.

</p>

<p>The inquisition was for convicting enemies of the Roman Catholic Church. Inquisition isn’t exactly condemned in the bible either.</p>

[futurexecutive]

<p>God is good all the time.</p>

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>Does anyone else think IV should be posting in actual threads?</p>

[Adenine]

<p>^^ God is so nice and loving that he commits people to eternal torture. (I don’t believe it that obviously but that’s not the point.)</p>

[futurexecutive]

<p>People are bad all the time.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>

No, I think that covers it well. If you’ve been shown the evidence and still choose an absurd myth written out of ignorance, that’s pretty senseless for this day and age.

It you think it covers it well, i.e. you made up those constraining categories because it suits you. If someone personally finds the evidence uncompelling, it would be senseless to accept it regardless. No one is in any way obligated to conform to the thinking of the scientific community.</p>

<p>

Its not about what I want to believe about them, its how they operate when someone tries to challenge their beliefs. They don’t have any proof that life was “created” by their god – its a conclusion they formed ahead of time. That mutation can only cause destruction or that beneficial mutations can’t produce new species is just wrong and deceitful. And if they lose a particular argument, they’ll go off and harp about some other part of biology that they don’t understand.

You just don’t stop, do you? “How they operate?” You are STILL psychologizing religious people, trying to predict what they were do and how they think ahead of time because it is convenient for you to do so.</p>

<p>

And how can you call someone “rational” if they blatantly ignore or twist the evidence supporting evolution to the point where their conclusion is that “it didn’t happen”?

It is only ignoring it or twisting it from your perspective. Even if they did do that, I can still call it “rational” because they are potentially looking out for their own best interests.</p>

<p>

Since when does accepting evolution mean “engag[ing] in some sort of nihilism”?

Where did you get the idea that I said that? In my statement, the person has rejected evolutionary theory. You said it would be wrong for them to accept creationism just because they don’t like evolution, that there could be more evidence, etc. out there. I was saying that perhaps they would believe in creationism in the interest of avoiding nihilism since they have already rejected evolution.</p>

<p>

For future reference, whenever you see “99.999…%” it means “almost always.”

I realize that. If you had said “almost always,” I would have said something like, “How lovely, some qualification you just made up.”</p>

<p>

that’s true but there’s still zero evidence of that being true and plenty of experiments and other evidence (ex. Stanley-Miller) to flat-out contradict that.

Well, yes, I would say that it is scientifically impossible to say that God did anything at all, since I’m pretty sure that modern science rejects the idea of the supernatural out of hand. Just because there is no “evidence” for something being true doesn’t mean it’s automatically not true. Hence faith-based beliefs. If that epistemology is not good enough for you, then fine, but don’t assume that everyone has the same epistemology as you and then call them “senseless” when you realize that their beliefs don’t conform to your epistemology. How does the possibility of forming organics from inorganics “contradict” the idea that god/a fairy/Santa Claus/I created all life?</p>

<p>

Explaining some natural phenomenon by saying “god did it” isn’t “evidence” (things and procedures used to demonstrate the truth of an assertion) at all.

No, it’s not; it’s a theory.</p>

<p>

How is that relevant?

It’s relevant because that’s what your statement was, an opinion about ethics.</p>

<p>

If something is wrong, doesn’t match the evidence or I just don’t agree with it there’s nothing wrong with challenging it.

In some people’s ethical systems, yes. In other systems, no.</p>

[INVENIAMVIAM]

<p>

@CelaPlusAimaple

Does anyone else think IV should be posting in actual threads?

</p>

<p>:P Do you want me to?</p>

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>Of course! I always hope for the original HSLers to come back, because they are more interesting (jk fellow 2010 people) - e.g. that time Hilsa and fizix came back in like January - and this thread just goes in circles</p>

<p>now to get AOM back… >_></p>

[eastafrobeauty]

<p>I hope you all know that Evolution is complete B.S.</p>

[estrat1]

<p>@eastafrobeauty</p>

<p>Amen to that. I just wish people would stop wasting time on the idea of evolution (because, come on, there is absolutely no fossil evidence and it’s not like ‘genes’ really exist), and start focusing on bigger problems. Like how the liberal media presents the sex-centered theory of reproduction as fact.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ The existence of genes is one of the major things against evolution. It was a much more reasonable theory back when Lamarckism was thought to be true (ie when Darwen wrote).</p>

[INVENIAMVIAM]

<p>@CelaPlusAimaple… I have AOM’s IM address, but I haven’t seen him on recently (though I haven’t really been on that much either). He was the most epic of HSLers in my opinion. I seriously do not compare. I loved his threads.</p>

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>omgomgomg I feel the same way haha</p>

<p>/melodrama</p>

<p>I would do virtually anything to be able to end my search for the closing of AOM’s chapter in HSL history, which, as far as I have been able to tell, was the catalyst for the past 2 years of incredibly necroable threads. </p>

<p>Also, TCBH says AOM killed himself, so I feel like I need to have a happy ending to reaffirm my faith in humanity.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

I think many that keep themselves free from religion are just annoyed by people who claim that their god and religion are somehow valid and that religious dogma should somehow take some time out of real science in science classrooms. Particularly annoying are those who feel the right to lie about scientific facts and mislead other people to give their religious garbage any credibility.

</p>

<p>I agree. But by what they claim is true, there is no justification for this annoyance.</p>

<p>

And criticizing religion and opposing it isn’t “antitheism.” You just think that way because, like many people, you believe that religion has some weird protection about it where it can’t be challenged no matter how asinine, unevidenced, misleading or corrupted it can become.

</p>

<p>When a person does that, it shows that they believe in some overall standard of value. Otherwise, how can they claim that things which are “asinine, unevidenced, misleading, or corrupted” should be opposed?</p>