Stop the Madness

Ceridwen018 · Jul 30, 2005

'meeting point' between a physicist and a phylosopher ? - because of course , historically many have been both.

I'm sure that many have been both, but I don't see why a "meeting point" is needed. Both deal with nearly completely different topics. Unless you meant "theologian" in place of philosopher.

michel · Jul 30, 2005

Ceridwen018 said:
I'm sure that many have been both, but I don't see why a "meeting point" is needed. Both deal with nearly completely different topics. Unless you meant "theologian" in place of philosopher.

I guess I did, thanks Ceridwen;

Mr Spinkles · Jul 30, 2005

michel said:
That almost sounds as if there is no hope for a 'meeting point' between a physicist and a phylosopher ? - because of course , historically many have been both.

The question is not whether a physicist can be a philosopher (or vice-versa), michel, but whether it is appropriate for a physicist to start talking about karmic realignment in the middle of a lecture on electromagnetism. Similarly, I would hope politicians wouldn't start going on about the "evils" of Islam in the middle of a session of Congress.

Natas · Jul 31, 2005

I don't have a problem with the theory of creation being taught along side of evolution as long as it's in the proper context. Students should be taught that in the absence of scientific thought, many people chose to believe in supreme beings to account for what they didn't understand. Evolution came into prominence by the accumulation of observations and facts.
In addition, they should be instructed that while both are theories, evolution is investigated scientifically, while creationism is based almost entirely on faith.

Yerda · Jul 31, 2005

michel said:
we are hopefully out of that endless sickening cycle of 'prove it to me scientifically that God exists'.

Firstly, how often do you hear people repeating such a 'sickening' mantra Michel? I personally, never do.

Secondly, it's a major misunderstanding but still quite impressive (on science's side) that people would rely on scientific enquiry before taking a belief on board (though the might end up rather short of confidence in the supernatural

).

Thirdly, if we clear up the issue of science having no part in godly explorations, why should the individuals perpetuating this 'cycle' accept, without good reason, the existence of your god?

Ceridwen018 · Aug 8, 2005

I'm going to keep bumping this baby up until I can find someone with enough guts to take the bait! I am flabbergasted that such a controversial issue in our society today could have been thwarted so quickly, and by me no less! Come now, that's just wrong!

Fluffy · Aug 8, 2005

I'm going to keep bumping this baby up until I can find someone with enough guts to take the bait! I am flabbergasted that such a controversial issue in our society today could have been thwarted so quickly, and by me no less! Come now, that's just wrong!

I don't think it is possible, on the most part, to debate about faith and have a side winning. The tools of debate are logic and reason. It will rip apart any faith that attempts to accumulate questions to fit its answers via these 2 tools. It will do nothing to destroy the faith itself.

In other words, it is very easy to destroy the arguments of creationists that are based on anything other than faith since those based in logic will only be there to justify the faith rather than the other way around. It is possible to manipulate faith in a debate but it is far harder and very rare.

Ceridwen018 · Aug 8, 2005

I don't think it is possible, on the most part, to debate about faith and have a side winning. The tools of debate are logic and reason. It will rip apart any faith that attempts to accumulate questions to fit its answers via these 2 tools. It will do nothing to destroy the faith itself.

Creationists seem to think that this is a matter of science, not faith.

In other words, it is very easy to destroy the arguments of creationists that are based on anything other than faith since those based in logic will only be there to justify the faith rather than the other way around. It is possible to manipulate faith in a debate but it is far harder and very rare.

Again, creationists are not willing to admit that their arguments are based solely on faith. Otherwise it would be clear to everyone why teaching creationism in the sceince lab is pure folly.

matey · Aug 23, 2005

I'm all for not having creationism or intelligent design taught is school's as an alternative to evolution.

This whole debate reminds of times past when religion attacks science. It is fact v. imagination. We attribute our existence to something greater than ourselves because we have absolutely no idea of how we are here.

Science takes the approach of using evidence to formulate hypotheses and theories based on that evidence. And there is evidence for evolution. The evidence came before the theory. Further, the theories can be falsified so that if a better theory comes up to explain the evidence, it will take hold as the new accepted theory.

Creationism and id are attacking the scientific method and trying to replace it with a certainty that will probaly be unassailable even if evidence comes up to falsify it. The evidence will be made to fit the certainty. Whereas in science, the evidence can either support or refute the theory.

Spaceships and computers work because of science, not because of a belief in God. A belief in God is great, but it shouldn't interfere with, or distort, our observations of this world. Which is all science is, observations of this world. And those observations are used to explain how this world works in an open-ended way, leaving out bias.

michel · Aug 23, 2005

Ceridwen018 said:
Creationists seem to think that this is a matter of science, not faith.

Again, creationists are not willing to admit that their arguments are based solely on faith. Otherwise it would be clear to everyone why teaching creationism in the sceince lab is pure folly.

I believe in an initial 'spark' of creation, so I call myself a creationist - but there is nothing scientific about creation. And yes, I will admit fully that my beliefs are based solely on Faith.............

I think I have 'mellowed' again, over time - to put it another way, I have maybe learned that to bring logic into faith (Which was the way I used to look at the world - as a self-protection mechanism) - is valueless. I guess I have you, Mr Spikles, Sunstone, Pah, Rob .......and I dare say others to thank for that).

Mark1615 · Aug 23, 2005

Those who say that religion (Chrisitianity in particular) is unscientific are mislead: In Isaiah 40:22, it states that the earth is a sphere - science has confirmed; In Jeremiah 33:22, it states that there are innumerable stars, where once science said that there were only 1,100 stars; Job 26:7 states that the earth floats freely in space, whereas science once claimed that earth sat on a large animal; Hebrews 11:3 states that creation is made of invisible elements (atoms), while science was once ignorant on the subject; 1 Corinthians 15:41 states that all the stars are different, while science once claimed that they were the same; Job 38:19,20 states that light moves, whereas science once said that light was fixed in place; Job 28:25 states that air has weight, while science once claimed that air was weightless; Ecclesiastes 1:6 states that winds blow in cyclones, while science believed that wind blew straight; Leviticus 17:11 states that blood is the source of life and health, while science claimed that sick people must be bled; 2 Samuel 22:16 and Jonah 2:6 state that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains, while science said that the ocean floor was flat; Job 38:16 states that the ocean contains springs, whereas science said the ocean was fed only by rivers and rain; Leviticus 15:13 states that when dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water, whereas science once said that hands could be washed in still water. These are some of the many scientific confirmations of the Bible.
Please visit www.WayOfTheMaster.com

Ceridwen018 · Aug 23, 2005

Alright! I'm glad someone decided to post in my little thread! I thought it was gone for good!

Welcome to the forums, Mark1615! I noticed you were new.

Hebrews 11:3 states that creation is made of invisible elements (atoms),

Does it say "atoms" in Hebrews? You see, the problem with calling these Bible verses "scientific" is that it is all based on interpretation. You claim that the Bible says the Earth is a sphere, but it also said that the Earth was flat. Was it just trying to cover more ground? The Bible also says that the sun and planets revolve around the Earth, which we know is not true. So you see, these mystical and vague allusions to scientific truths aren't really working for me. Also, as far as religious books and science go, the Q'ran knocks out the Bible any day of the week. Maybe we should teach Islam in the schools?

Mark1615 · Aug 23, 2005

I really enjoy this forum....anyway, no, it doesn't mention 'atoms' in the Bible, that is why I put that word in parentheses. I am unaware of the Bible claiming the earth is flat (perhaps a reference where it says this?). It would be great help if I could look up where it says that the planets revolve around the earth. I think I will read the Q'ran, thanks. You say "mystical and vague allusions." Medical science has only recently discovered that the blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.
Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are recieved on earth as a high pitch. God mentions this in Job 38:7: When the morning stars sang together...
Luke 17:34-36 says that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night at the same time.
Please visit www.WayOfTheMaster.com

JerryL · Aug 23, 2005

I am unaware of the Bible claiming the earth is flat

Genesis 1, Job 9:6, Psalm 75:3, and Isaiah 40:22 come to mind.

It would be great help if I could look up where it says that the planets revolve around the earth.

It doesn't. It does say that the Earth is fixed and the lights are set moving in the sky. (again, genesis 1)

Medical science has only recently discovered that the blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

Can you please cite for both claims?

Science has discovered that stars emit radio waves, which are recieved on earth as a high pitch. God mentions this in Job 38:7: When the morning stars sang together...

Radio waves don't have a pitch.

Luke 17:34-36 says that the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will occur while some are asleep at night and others are working at daytime activities in the field.

I fail to see the syncronicity you attribute to the passage... it seems a reach.

Ceridwen018 · Aug 23, 2005

Medical science has only recently discovered that the blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day

Who do you think wrote these laws? Why, the rabbis doing the circumcisions, of course. I don't want to think how many babies died from blood loss or infection due to an unhealing wound before they figured that one out. The point here is that it doesn't take a supernatural diety to figure this little fact out. Whether or not science has only recently dicovered it remains to be proven.

Anyhow, this has little to do with the topic at hand. Do you think creationism should be taught in schools?

ch'ang · Aug 23, 2005

ID should not be taught in school simply because it is a Christian agenda, you can prove this by asking any person who believes in ID if they think that aliens were what pushed and nudged our evolution in this direction they will look at your like your head is on backwards. This is because they think that god did it and so it has no place in the science classroom, they get around god by calling it a supernatural entity

Pah · Aug 24, 2005

ch'ang said:
ID should not be taught in school simply because it is a Christian agenda, you can prove this by asking any person who believes in ID if they think that aliens were what pushed and nudged our evolution in this direction they will look at your like your head is on backwards. This is because they think that god did it and so it has no place in the science classroom, they get around god by calling it a supernatural entity

The whole ID movement is laced with hypocrisy

michel · Aug 24, 2005

Pah said:
The whole ID movement is laced with hypocrisy

I don't believe it should be taught in school, Pah, but why do you say 'Hypocracy' ? =- do you mean as in 'It's the Christian claim attributable to their God?'

Mark1615 · Aug 24, 2005

It looks like I'm alone on this one.....oh well. First, yes I do believe Creationism should be taught in public schools, and my previous posts explain why. Here are a few examples why Evolution should be taught as only a theory: According to an NBC News report in August 1999, there was a "remarkable" discovery in Australia. They said the Journal of Science reported that they had found what they considered to be proof that life appeared on earth 2.7 billion years ago - a billion years earlier than previously thought. They now admit that they were wrong in their first estimate (a mere 1,000,000,000 years off), but with this discovery they are now sure that they have the truth...until their next discovery.
CBS News reported in October 1999 that discoveries were made of the bones of an unknown animal in Asia that may be as much as 40 million years old. This changed scientific minds as to where man first originated. Scientists once believed that primates evolved in Africa, but now they think they may be wrong, and that man's ancestors may have originated in Asia. So they believe...until their next discovery.
USA Today (March 21, 2001) reported, "Paleontologists have discovered a new skeleton in the closet of human ancestry that is likely to force science to revise, if not scrap, current theories of human origins." Reuters reported that the discovery left "scientists of human evolution...confused," saying, "Lucy may not even be a direct human ancestor after all."
"Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make life impossible...The necessity to produce life lies at the center of the universe's whole machinery and design." John Wheeler, Princeton University professor of physics (Reader's Digest, Sept. 1986).
Even evolutionist Stephen Hawking, considered the best-known scientist since Albert Einstein, acknowledges "the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on..." (Austin American-Statesman, Oct. 19, 1997).

Please visit www.WayOfTheMaster.com

Ceridwen018 · Aug 24, 2005

So they believe...until their next discovery.

You are offended that scientists are in constant search for knowledge of the universe in natural world, unlike you who apparently already knows it all?

I don't see what the problem is with scientists revising theories in light of new evidence. That's what makes science so great! Religion, on the other hand, cannot adapt to new discoveries and knowledge. That is why many creationists still believe in a 6000 year old earth and a geocentric universe.

Stop the Madness

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

Mr

Active Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

A fool

Well-Known Member

Member

Administrator Emeritus

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

artist in training

Uber all member

Administrator Emeritus

Member

Well-Known Member