Religious Right, right?

[mindido]

Drunk again cable?

The feds have yet to get involved to a major extent. This is happening at the local level so far but its only a matter of time. And if you understood anything about science you would know that science and religion cannot intermix, in any way. Religion is a "belief" system, you can't "prove" anything about it.

 

[Iceberg]

creationism is now referred to as "intelligent design." nowhere that i am aware of teaches this to the complete exclusion of evolution... since both have questions that cannot be answered absolutely, both have a place in the discussion of how things came to be... the argument is for the inclusion of creationism as a theory, not for the elimination of evolutionary theory...

Wrong. The Kansas board of education banned the teaching of evolution in their schools not more than a couple of years ago.

The Religious Right wish to do the same in all schools in the US, much to the dismay of the many bright scientists who wish for the children of America to be properly educated. This is an agenda that is far from hidden.

 

[cableguy]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

--Albert Einstein

mindido, i just noticed you are fromn wisconsin... i shall therefore excuse you from any manner of indiscretions in regards to common sense, alcoholism, manners, and common decency... you are a cheesehead, which means you are eminently unqualified to mention others drinking habits disparagingly... for the record, i have consumed alcohol on 5 dates so far this calendar year, and will likely not double that in the rest of the year... i am also completely free of mood/mind altering drugs... thanks for casting stones with no justification, though... it shows us who you truly are...

i am sad that all of you have fallen so far off the ledge of political correctness that one certain albert einstein no longer qualifies as a scientist in your eyes... another thing that bothers me is the complete closed mindedness of the "enlightened" few... one would think that open mindedness, of which they espouse constantly, would be a cornerstone of their beliefs... in typical hypocritical fashion, it seems that "open mindedness" means ONLY having opponents cave in to their views...

thankfully, as is increasingly apparent, the rest of the nation--the great unwashed huddled masses--do not see things that way, and can spot duplicity in time to vote against it... if there are competing theories in an arena that lacks provability, and if said area encompasses legitimate educational subject matter, all said theories should be taught, with no emphasis on any one in particular...

 

[moxdevil]

Creationism or 'Intelligent Design', though I see no difference between the two. Surely the creator would be intelligent in the Creationist pseudo-theory? This is just the current ploy by people who profess to rational inquiry and yet persist in holding absurd assumptions that are not open to rational enquiry. You can wrap such an absurdity that is Creationism in any pseudo-scientific jargon one wishes; it doesn’t make it a viable theory. Where rational enquiry has yet to provide the answer, it doesn’t mean you can insert an irrational answer. Creationism is not even a theory it’s a joke, one that has been tolerated for way too long, and only persists abundantly in the hillbilly parts of the world. What is more the teaching of Creationism isn’t even about the inclusion of the other monotheistic beliefs, their ‘creations’ differ, what is being taught is the Creationism according to fundamental Christians. This is in itself evidence for the promotion or at the very least the special position that Christianity is accorded in the United States.

Einstein was a believer in god, and an exceptional scientific theorist, but he was wrong in his belief in god. He was like other believers who take on the pursuit of rational enquiry attempting to retain assumptions whilst supposedly adopting the approach of leaving every assumption to question and challenge.

As for open-mindedness, I don’t see how having ridiculous assumptions about something makes one open-minded, or is even a quality one would wish to have. Just because some people don’t believe something, and they have a scrupulous system of proof to support their lack of belief, this makes them close-minded. It is analogous with me saying that you lack open-mindedness because you don’t accept that the world is a piece of cheese, and the angels are worms and that with them all life has evolved from that cheese. Open-mindedness is not defined by the persistence and tolerance of intellectual absurdity.

 

[mindido]

cable,

Let me explaiin some basics about science and religion.

Good science relies on, and must have, two things;"proof" and "reproducability". 2 + 2 = 4 is a "proof" that any elementary student anywhere in the world, that has been taught basic math, will recognize as a correct answer. This "proof" is also "reproducable". That means that anyone, anywhere, given the same problem, can come up with the same answer using the same methodology. If these two things are not present in a science, then it is not a science. It may be an art or it could be a belief.

Religion is a "belief" system. There is no way to "prove" any of it. The bible or koran may be good stories but thats all they are, fictional stories. Science is not science when fiction becomes involved.

 

[moxdevil]

Wrong. The Kansas board of education banned the teaching of evolution in their schools not more than a couple of years ago.

The Religious Right wish to do the same in all schools in the US, much to the dismay of the many bright scientists who wish for the children of America to be properly educated. This is an agenda that is far from hidden.

Is it banned solely from primary education or secondary as well? If this led to secondary education as well, in fact it need not have to directly. The malleable susceptible minds of young children may have been adequately conditioned by then to reject any teaching contrary to the fairy stories instilled in their minds. But if so I’m sure that every university department of science in the world is looking forward to undergraduate applicants from Kansas's high school students!

Personally I call that abuse; intellectually handicapping young people and severely limiting their opportunities for a full education and further study in the field of scientific enquiry. How can any respectable science department take any Kansas student seriously? The Kansas board members should be thrown in prison. Numbskulls!

 

[mindido]

Mox,

And Alabama is right behind them. It is really going to be too bad for those kids.

 

[cableguy]

mindido, your post was beautiful, now if you could only see that it applies to another thread we are regular participants in....

i believe neither creationism nor evolution are solely responsible... it is impossible with current technology to attempt to reproduce evolution from basically nothing, so there isnt proof to be had there... creationism comes from many religions, in many flavors, and religion, by definition, involves faith, which cannot be quantified... sorry, but generally accepted does not a fact make...

when i look at the vast number of different things, i have a bit of a problem thinking they all came from the same place and evolved differently... evolution, as a process, is fact... if you look at an evolutionary chain, however, you will notice that damn near everything BUT the current version is extinct... this is because an evolution is an adaptation made permanent... the "new" thing is simply better able to compete for food/water/light/shelter, and crowds out the "old" version... the notable exception to this would be caused by seperation... an "old" population may become split, end up in different environments, and thereby evolve differently.. how did things begin on earth?? no one will ever know for sure...

 

[moxdevil]

how did things begin on earth?? no one will ever know for sure...

Still not reason to replace the continuing search for answers with fallacious assumptions, which are clung on to by the term 'faith'.

I noticed you say "current technology", thus suggesting that in the future it will be possible. Here is one major distinction between religion and science: science will continue to question both itself and its subject in the search for rational answers, thus can be furthered over time, religion, on the other-hand simply loses more and more ground with the passing of time, its 'ready-made' answers are exposed for what they are, thus the theist without rational enquiry on his/her side clings on desperately to the notion of 'faith'. Lo and behold only the theist knows what faith is, and yet no two believers can define it the same, that is if they can define it at all, hence the current recourse to the appropriation of scientific jargon by theists.

Would you advocate the teaching of Aristotelian cosmology in schools also? After all millions of people have 'faith' in their horoscopes and science is unable to prove that planets don't have feelings.

If religious education is going to persist at schools, then stick creationism and its fellow pseudo-theories with it, and keep it away from science. It is not a rival theory, its not even a theory one can test- its part of that 'ignorance is bliss' school of thought, and education is meant to help rid people of ignorance not promote it.

http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/93q2/creationfaq.html

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

"thus can be furthered over time, religion, on the other-hand simply loses more and more ground with the passing of time,"

extremely false statement:fag: Hardly a year passes without some scientist concluding that there must be a divine soure behind existance. Once you realize that space and time are tangible...one can be bent and one can be out ran than its not at all hard to believe that this "darkness is a cloak of a single dimension" Something is behind that cloak, both creation and evolution recognize this. They both agree that at one time there was nothing and a big fucking ball of energy came out of nowhere. And even though the universe was created from this single ball of energy, the planets and stars, moons and metors and everything that exists are made up of entirely different chemicals and elements not even found in each other. All from the same energy. So i guess the planets makeup evolved too? So the only thing that loses more and more ground over the passing of time is "an open mind". The funny thing is, it "evolved" this way. Ironic

 

[moxdevil]

How is it a false statement? What does religion give us answers to today? What did it claim to give us answers to 100 years ago? More or less than today? What did it claim to give us answers to 1000 years ago? More or less than 100 years ago? More or less than today? The answer is less. Religion gives less answers today than it did 100 or 1000 years ago. Science replaces religion where religion has claimed to have the answer. Thus religion loses ground and science moves forward to reveal more questions that require science to answer.

"Hardly a year passes without some scientist concluding that there must be a divine soure behind existance."

As for scientists adopting theistic positions, need i answer this? There are scientists who are already theists and there are those who become disillusioned with their science, this is not proof of god, nor is it proof of science's failure.

Read this article, especially the second half.

http://www.skeptic.com/archives05.html

And Duke, "Something is behind that cloak, both creation and evolution recognize this. They both agree that at one time there was nothing and a big fucking ball of energy came out of nowhere."

The 'Argument from Design' and the 'Argument from First Cause' which you allude to here, though its a combination of the two. All i can say is don't manipulate probability and causal sequences, neither lead to a god.
:lol:

 

[mindido]

Duke,

"extremely false statement".

You don't really believe that, do you? Or, maybe, the sun and all the planets DO rotate around the earth? From time immemorial, when man could not explain a particular event, some priest or another would explain it as "gods will". From there it would become dogma and unassailable. Just ask Copernicus or DaVinci about that. That dogma wasn't changed until some group of scientists found otherwise, the info was accepted by the general public, and the church wound up looking like fools. This has happened way too many times just in the last 2,000 years (shoot, just in the last 30 years).

"Hardly a year passes ..."

I personally know of no scientists that have concluded a "divine source" (but I don't know everybody). It is virtually impossible for a "scientist" to come to that conclusion because there is no basis for such a conclusion. How could anyone come to that conclusion? Based on what data?

"Once you realize that space and time are tangible...one can be bent and one can be out ran than its not at all hard to believe...."

The key word here is "believe". I'm not sure what you are referring to here (I think I know but I'd like you to explain it). If its what I think, your reeeeeaallyy jumping the gun.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

You don't really believe that, do you?

Maybe we're not clear on what losing ground means. In the eyes of the people? Because of some great find in the theory of evolution to change peoples minds? Ballsy statement to make. Who are you to question one's belief?

"Or, maybe, the sun and all the planets DO rotate around the earth?"

For the sake of discussion why do you constantly put words in others mouths? You do realize not everyone comes to the same conclusion on subjects as yourself, do you not?

"The key word here is "believe". I'm not sure what you are referring to here (I think I know but I'd like you to explain it)."

You will have to do the explaining because as i've stated both "theories" believe this to be true, but it is evolution that fails to "explain" "what and where". "It just happened is the answer". That is good enough for you i understand.

"How could anyone come to that conclusion? Based on what data?"

There are two theories." Since there are 2 "theories", what word would you use to describe a persons personal conclusion to their own idea on anything other than the word belief?

"I personally know of no scientists that have concluded a "divine source" (but I don't know everybody)"

Use google or look at the links i gave while on this same subject in whatever thread we already talked about this in.

Why has no one commented on my statement about the different makeup of the universe that came from the exact same energy? You see i take an absolute stand on almost nothing as most of you do, so i'd like to hear input on how this is possible. What's the evolutionists point of view on this? Must be a scientific reason for it, and what better way for evolution to gain ground than to explain it. And last why get defensive about it? Save it for when the old lady questions you about the slut that her friends cousin saw you with at the club buying drinks for.:headbang:

 

[moxdevil]

You will have to do the explaining because as i've stated both "theories" believe this to be true, but it is evolution that fails to "explain" "what and where". "It just happened is the answer". That is good enough for you i understand.

"How could anyone come to that conclusion? Based on what data?"

There are two theories." Since there are 2 "theories", what word would you use to describe a persons personal conclusion to their own idea on anything other than the word belief?:

A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena". This term doesn't imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, "scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely." Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness as has already been stated over and again by Mindido and I. Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.

"Why has no one commented on my statement about the different makeup of the universe that came from the exact same energy? You see i take an absolute stand on almost nothing as most of you do, so i'd like to hear input on how this is possible. What's the evolutionists point of view on this? Must be a scientific reason for it, and what better way for evolution to gain ground than to explain it."

You are intentionally being inane. Applying biological evolution to Astro-physics and cosmology, and in such a way as to imply its a reasonable question. Try reading some Hawking. I assume you are asking a rendition of 'The first law of thermodynamics'? I agree that scientific answers to the origin of the universe are not yet persuasive. 'Yet' being the appropriate term, i'm not going to apologise for this, why should i? Simply because science is yet to provide a water-tight answer doesn't mean one can adopt a stupid and pathetic pseudo-answer instead and claim it to be an alternative theory. No amount of science-speak will ever make creationism a theory, it is a complete and utter nonsense and should not be even equated with the genuine work of science.

"Must be a scientific reason for it, and what better way for evolution to gain ground than to explain it."

What's this the last bastion of creationism. It is far too easy for the theist and others to criticise one area that science has yet to give a water-tight answer, whereas in comparison the theists comes up with what? supported by what? reproduced over and again, when? Oh yeah god or is it intelligent design?

What is more your earlier question of the different elements and chemicals, try the atomic theories.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Thats it? Soo thaaat's it? Man its plain as day ain't it. What was i thinking! We won't be passing out any football helmets this game since nobody will need them. Myself included. Now will atleast 3 more people type out the definition of the word theory. I think its finally starting to seep in. You realize that your frustration for my willing and or wanting of your stance is the same as mine? To tame a horse tie a noose around its neck and let it walk in circles. This subject is just that, circles, just read your post then read mine and so on. No one here is the horse and yet no one has cut the noose. I'm going to make a million dollars writing fortunes and insert them into this delicious dessert that i'll call fortune cookies! You wait and see. I'll have a commercial with myself in chains and it'll say: I'm rich bitch!! Honk Honk

 

[moxdevil]

Duke, you see i am expected to have the entire encyclopedic knowledge of science to refute or appease your questions. Where as you can simply pass it off as answered by god or whatever you can imagine. God is not a theory and personal incredulity is not evidence for Intelligent Design. It is evidence for a poor understanding of evolution, biology, and the scientific method.

Our positions differ significantly, i am in a position whereby everything, everything is open to meritocratic challenge, that is things are judged through a process of rational enquiry and nothing is held to be sacrosanct from this process, including the current number, NUMBER of 'big bang' theories and the development of the theory of evolution. You see such theories are not complete, thus shouldn't be leapt upon for not answering everything you want.

You on the otherhand evidently take certain things to be sacrosanct and work from those assumptions, you claim evolution doesn't answer the 'what' and 'where' questions. Evolution does answer these questions though you seemingly want to confuse evolution with a theory for everything. If science is simply saying 'it is' then you have a very ignorant impression of the scientific process akin to that of the person who likes to present science as a new religion, and its practitioners as new priests. This may be the case in those horror movies of the mad scientist, but it rarely happens in reality.

If only everything could be answered so easily as the theist believes it should be, but you see the world is complex and humans struggle to make sense of this complexity, but we are, through science making sense of it. Religion offers no knowledge of the complexity of the world, the reason for this is that it depends upon the superficial. Where it encounters complexity it ignores it or brushes it off, better still it has had the notion of intellectualising itself by the adoption of different philosophies and pseudo-scientific theories. Alas these theories havent stood the test of time and now it finds itself in a predicament: ignore or refute science, or try to adopt aspects of it to make it appear reasonable. Christianity tried this with Galen, Ptolomy, Aristotle and Plato.

Unfortunately such scientific theories have been found to be wrong, and Christianity is at a loss as to what to do next. You see religion needs absolutes, it requires things to fit it's already made assumptions, the earlier science of the before-mentioned fitted this or were made to fit, rational science on the otherhand doesn't work this way so cannot help it.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Now that was well fucking said!:headbang: I have to admit that was well fucking said!! Especially :"Duke, you see i am expected to have the entire encyclopedic knowledge of science to refute or appease your questions. Where as you can simply pass it off as answered by god or whatever you can imagine. " That really sums it up. And is truth. Now lets say you have this knowledge in its entirety. Now where's the argument? See? Its written that god spoke to the Isrealites and they still did not believe in him. Remember the famous quote: "am i my brothers keeper"? It was written that god was lied to right in his "face". So it is written that we are given "free will" to do, act, speak, and be as we please because he loved us this much to do so. To you this is hog wash, i know the bible is fairy tales to enstill fear, but to others it makes sense, and i understand they are misled, wrong, and ignorant to scattered facts etc. We now have science, the audacity of it all and so forth. Enter Faith. And There are different Faiths. Some have weak faith because of the fear of consequence, and others have faith because it makes sense. Personally i'm the latter. While scientists bicker over whether or not eggs are high in cholesterol i'll keep it and with an open mind. Don't hate me for it or even be discouraged with it. Don't hate others for it. From my point of view, free will entitles you your own. Science has pulled much wool "from" many eyes. It has also created an unprecidented amount of ego in the human heart. Everything has to be explained even when it can't. We give ourselves soooo much credit for so little. Seriously if we went to the moon, big deal we hammered out iron ore and stuck a match to a flammable substance and flew through the air, but if we evolved from a fucking monkey over the comparable time chart of 5 minutes and then flew to the moon, then holy bloody fucking shit on the end of a spanked ass cheek that really is a big fucking deal!! Notice how the greatest accomplishment of human history is pushed so far to the back that we have to remember that it actually happened?

 

[moxdevil]

"Science has pulled much wool "from" many eyes. It has also created an unprecidented amount of ego in the human heart. Everything has to be explained even when it can't. We give ourselves soooo much credit for so little. Seriously if we went to the moon, big deal we hammered out iron ore and stuck a match to a flammable substance and flew through the air, but if we evolved from a fucking monkey over the comparable time chart of 5 minutes and then flew to the moon, then holy bloody fucking shit on the end of a spanked ass cheek that really is a big fucking deal!! Notice how the greatest accomplishment of human history is pushed so far to the back that we have to remember that it actually happened?"

Duke i agree, but i would argue that where science boosts ego's religion beat it to the punch. Is there anything more egotistical than thinking oneself to be the embodiment and image of god, that a creator of the universe selected us, the human ape as its chosen one, that everything is ours to do as we please, and that we are special and that somehow that creator gives a toss about our everyday existence- now that's wish fulfilment.

Personally i think of myself as an average amalgamation of atoms that exists for a finite time on an even bigger amalgamation of atoms, itself average amongst other amalgamations of atoms. The sum being that its just atoms and nothing special. Try saying that when you're pissed or high! :lol:

Still it comes down to worldviews, science and religion are simply aspects of these. Science seeks to attain the position whereby everything in that worldview is open to question, if only because assumptions not open to question lead to folly. If science held Aristotleian cosmology to be beyond question we would still be framing our lives according to the temperaments of the stars, this could have serious ramifications for the avoidance of natural disasters. These views if held as untouchable monarchs can have serious consequences for our every day lives, the unquestioning belief in a deity has serious ramifications in our everyday lives.

I would argue that science tries to answer where it can, nothing in theory should be beyond our understanding, this doesn't make us gods, because no one individual can know everything.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

I would argue that science tries to answer where it can, nothing in theory should be beyond our understanding, this doesn't make us gods, because no one individual can know everything.

Ohhhhh you just opened a can son!!!! A fucking can i tell you!! Now dig this! God created us in his image ok? Image like picture so we must look like him. Ok what if aliens are "god"? shhh shhh i know, just read on.... Now our science and understanding is growing crazy right? Now our sole existance is conscience or tangible thought, what we percieve as the soul/angels when we die. Walking "brain waves" inside a body. These brain waves can be recorded data Dead Link Removed to the biggest hard drive we could never comprehend. This data is checked upon our physical exit of this dimension. Now we've all heard the story of revelation. Our science is growing to the point of competion with that who created us. Aliens. We must ultimately be destroyed to the point of starting completely over or completely because we can't be allowed to be "god". A written prophecy that can be fullfilled because science already predicted it at %100. We must not be allowed to start our own project. DaVinci turned his back because he understood that we are peons derived from the science of peons. Not scared to mock that which he knew we could become. Fuck the fortune cookies, i have got a book deal, then a blockbuster movie to produce resulting in the suicide of hundreds of thousands of walking brain waves. For the sake of copy right infringement this message will self destruct in 5....4....3...2....

 

[cableguy]

fun, isnt it, duke???

at some point, something came from nothing... science says the big bang, many religions say god... perhaps these two names are both correct, that "big bang" is simply another name for god...

that was a lot of heavy reading, but from it, i have this statement to make...

if science is ever more eclipsing religion, and the "enlightened" have turned their backs on religion, why, then, are there so many people who are believers in the faith of their choice?? it seems that science is trying to take the place of religion... trying, i say, because in many areas, science isnt science anymore... both science and religion, in any stripe, exist to explain the unexplainable, and to provide a path to a better tomorrow... science, or "science" has settled for widely publicised theories over facts, and seems reticent at best to say something like "we dont know." science cannot be denied by a rational human being, yet we see examples of rational human beings rejecting "scientific" findings all the time... health, nutrition, are eggs healthy this week?? how about alcohol?? global warming is another area of dispute... at this point in time, id say overall that "science" is becoming more of a joke than religion... this trend will continue until theories are properly labeled, and scientists go back to prooving things, and being willing to admit they cant answer all questions...