They're primarily dismissed on a lack of evidence or the ability to study and reproduce the events. If science cannot even have a chance to even observe it, let alone explain it, there is no reason for it to invest time and money into it. Trust me, if there were a way to study paranormal activity in such a way that can be recorded and measured, it would be a scientific endeavour.

If the paradigm of science is that evidence can be studied, reproduced, tested, confirmed, observed, and otherwise depended upon to either negate or confirm a hypothesis (or potential fact), then that's not such a bad thing.

And you aren't implying that Creationists present their "data" with any neutrality, are you? Are they working from a peer-reviewed process? Are they open to scrutiny? Doubt? Verification?

Sorry, who's lacking in neutrality?

Strange, what's your opinion on empiricism?

Of course, anyone who see's a ghost is a schizophrenic according to Will

This shows the scientific spirit quite nicely, doesnt it?

That's not how it works and you know it. Stop being glib. Schizophrenia can be diagnosed after careful study and verification. And then, and here's the kicker, it can often be treated. If Jesus or Abraham Lincoln were talking to you when you were on a bus and the appropriate treatment helped to reduce those instances, would you still think you were talking to Jesus or Abraham Lincoln?

The Christian church is a power hungry monster. They believe in religious freedom.. for themselves. If a commercial doesn't mention Christmas, the church is gonna riot. If commercial mentions other holidays along with Christmas, the church is gonna riot. If somebody isn't Christian and doesn't want to be Christian, they're going to Hell. It doesn't matter how good the person is-- they're going to Hell for not being Christian. A cult pops up in another religion, the church assumes the rest of the religion is just like the cult. No questions asked. The Christian church has had cults pop up.. but oh no.. they're not connected with the church in any way at all. That would be STUPID to think so.

Traditional Chrisitianity embraces its members' ignorance. More modern Christian churches are a lot more open and don't dillydally in mundane topics and ideas. Modern churches teach, "God created the Earth and put us on here." "What about evolution?" "What about it? It says nothing here in the Bible about evolution.. so I dunno. Believe what you want about that. lol"

Without evidence, there is no reason to believe in the existence of claims.

Regardless of what the claim is, be it the existence of a supernatural being or creator, the claim that my shoe size is 14, or that I have brown hair, it would be foolish to accept those claims without evidence.

I hate to say this, but unless you are a trained scientist, or have taken a number of high level college courses on research methodology, your assertions of scientific validity carry no weight.

I suggest you watch this informative video on youtube, explaining what scientific research is.


Science does evaluate things with as much of a neutral and unbiased mindset as possible, and it is done through the accept form of peer reviewed scientific journals. If you took the time to examine the way in which research is systematically done, then submitted, reviewed, and discussed, you would understand why your claims are so...well, off base.

Science, and the research methods therein are the only way to advance society.

If you have ideas that you wish to be known to the scientific community, please write a research paper, and submit it to a peer reviewed journal.

I'm trying very hard not to get pulled into the drama in this thread.

So what's the main issue at hand? What is the core motivator here? I'm trying to understand both sides. Being an atheist and having studies several scientific fields casually I can related to the scientist's viewpoint on this.

Placing Creationism besides Evolution in the classroom is not only disgustingly naive but a clear attempt by the Church to gain further influence in a public institution. It's also harmful to the North American culture and economy because it's a direct attack on education, progress and intellectualism.

Organized religion has always had anti-scientific tendencies - sheep are easier to herd after all - but I would have imagined that with all the information available to people now days they would be able to make wiser and more informed decisions.

So my next pursuit is to figure out what motivates people to stay in the dark. I've come across many examples of this anti-scientific movement in the guise of Alternative Medicine, the Anti-Vaccination Movement, Astrology and Creationism. It seems that people want easy answers so badly that they are willing to fight for their right to be fooled.

It's fear, Mantus. It's masked behind things like anger or indignation or piety, but it's always there. The interesting thing is that most religious people don't have that kind of fear. They have uncertainty, but that comes with the faith territory. It's the terrified folks that tend to cause trouble, that fall in with the bad crowd, that take up hating people because of the color of their skin or who they love, and who decide that science is evil and go to work trying to undermine it.

Always searching for the "easy way".
Never happened when someone asked "what are the proofs of Big Bang?" and you start talking about black body radiation in order to explain microwave cosmic background someone get bored from the start asking "where the explosion part begin?" or "I don't want to know about radiation, I want to know about big bang!".
They are not the sharpest tool in the shed, but are part of it, and are the ones that "when you're able to make a movie about it, then is interesting".
And is difficoult to make a movie about cosmic background radiation...

Again, a very perverse scientific answer.

We should trust mind numbing drugs which effect the brain in ways we really dont understand other than by the symtoms of those effects, before we trust our own experience.

The "rules" of science say you cannot hear a spiritual voice, ergo you are mad, ergo take some drugs and stop hearing it.

The open minded thinker says we shall treat all evidence as possible. Science closes more doors than it opens. People today are as ignorant as those who thought the world was flat. And the one lesson they will not learn (the scientist again) from history is to be less proud and less sure.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

The rational man (such as myself) will state that theology and physical observation and theory are equally valid ways to understand the world we are in.

The belief in the holy is as important as testable obsevations in explaining and understanding the human condition and experience.

But the closed mind scientist places his fingers in his ears (and I say "his" because all of the errors of science are male errors) and chants that nothing that he cannot test in his own little labority can possibly exist and anyone who believes in it is a moron...

And the great "King" science after all gave us atom bombs, children born with missing limbs do to drugs given to their mothers unknowingly, AIDS, gas chambers, cancer... I would call someone who is anti-scientic a human being.

Not knowing the first thing about psychology, you're skipping the science part of the equation altogether. "Speaking to god" can generally be treated with antipsychotic, antidepressant, and antianxiety medication, along with therapy after being carefully reviewed using time-tested techniques and diagnosed using scientific criteria. Psychiatrists don't just write "talks to God, LOL" on a prescription after spending two minutes with a possibly schizophrenic patient, just like a medical doctor wouldn't write a "stigmata, LOL" prescription for someone bleeding from the wrists. Psychology and psychopharmacology are sciences. You don't seem to be grasping that.

The funny thing is that you seem to be assuming that the most powerful supernatural being in existence can't stand up to Clozaril or Thorazine. If someone really was talking to god or xenu or ba'al, why would antipsychotic drugs be able to manage the symptoms? Does omniscience exclude drugs that effect dopamine levels? I must have missed that passage in Leviticus.

I dont think the claim is that God can be numbed with drugs, it is that drugs can half kill a human being so that they can no longer perceive anything, or live emotionally.

What are the side effects of the drugs I listed and how common are those side effects? Please, be precise.

I'm sorry, what?

Who were the ones who accidentally invented AIDS and cancer?

That is absurd.

Again, in everything you state, you fail to present any evidence for your claims.

Believe what you wish, just don't try to push your unfounded beliefs on others, nor expect anyone else that actually understands science and what real research entails to give you a grain of respect. Your anti-intellectual are both shocking and misinformed.

Really? How exactly did we do that?

You speak as if religion is some totally peaceful force, yet there have been countless atrocities committed in the name of religion.

I suggest you look around you basically every single piece of technology you take for granted was created through science, and by researchers.

If you don't like the benefits of science, go live in a cave. If I didn't know better, I would swear you're just trolling.

I think I finally understand the meaning of the statement: There is no such thing as bad science, it is what you do with it that can be judged.

I dont claim that religion is only a force of peace - many wars have been fought under religious banners, and religion is one of the causes of dis-unity amongst societies. But religion IS the strongest force in most individual human beings, and human society and all known history.

It is important to separate what the church does and what God is to those who believe in Him. Most atheists find this hard of course - and their problems with religion always seem to come down to examples of abuse of power and hypocrisy amongst one church or other.

Religion is more important than science, a soulless world is more dangerous than one lacking in technology (hence - the Savage was better off where came from then in the Brave New World)

Creationalism and all major religious beliefs should be taught in schools - not as fact, but as a version of fact and a fact of human experience. What makes us human and our core beliefs that spread unconnected across every known society in all human history - this is a rather more important thing than a small theory about how animals may develop new characteristics.

I have no objection at all to schools teaching the theory of evolution. As a theory of how animals may change over generations to meet the needs of their environment, there is evidence which supports it and evidence that questions it. I dont object to the teaching of the so called "law of supply and demand" alongside other theories such as the labour theory of value either. An education should be broad and cover many idea's withOUT proscribing one as true.

As a theory outside of what it is, as a theory of what is humankind... again, I have no objection to it being taught, along with other theories.

Of course, if the teacher must stand in front of the class and describe how the human soul is the result of a million accidents applied to a single cell piece of crawling river slime... well, I think any clear thinking person would find it hard to keep a straight face.

_

At this point we expect the scientists to declare again that evolution must be factually true because God cannot be tested in the labrority (and nothing which the scientist cannot understand can exist). I give the school children of this nation credit for more sense than that though.




---------- Post added at 08:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

I think it is widely held that AIDS is a man made virus.

The glorious badges of honour of scientific progress - ie, revolting pollution of the food chain, the water supplies, the air itself by chemicals; the increased mass production of cancer causing drugs and electrical energy - this things cause a huge increase in incidents of cancer.

_

Science is male insofar as it seeks to master the world rather than live within it; that it arrogantly declares itself master of all without regard to the many things it does not understand; that it is a weapon, a means of exploitation, a means of the immerseration of the people. These errors are described as male, and we rightly call the scientist "he"

Strange:
1- Crationism (as other things you cited) is not a Theory, is a Belief. It MUST NOT be Taught as a Theory in the hours of Science, but as a Belief in hours of Religion. Yourself told that Creationism is not science, then why the hell it should be teached as a theory? Otherwise I agree with you, Creationism should be teached, as long with other religious beliefs. I don't know if you have it, here in Italy there's an Hour per Week teaching Religion. The problem is that is very Chatolic Biased, without a specific program, so depends very much on who is the teacher what you're going to study in detail and what pass, but usually creationism is teached widely (most of all the official position of the Chatolic Church)
2- AIDS created by science is not "widely held" is an insolent conspirative ranting.

Be careful of what you're saying. The wonderful thing about science is that by providing verifiable and repeatable results, it is available to anyone, not just the elite. Elitism by scientists will only make science less accessible to the public and promote scientific illiteracy. Carl Sagan was the epitome of what a scientist should be: he was a fearless champion of science, yet he was able to convey it in terms that a layman could easily understand and was patient and willing to calmly and rationally debate or discuss any scientific issue with anyone, even those who made infuriatingly illogical arguments or who tried to trap him with pseudo-scientific arguments.

Those who are more educated in certain areas are more qualified to interpret certain data, but while I don't have an intimate knowledge of epidemiology, medicine, or biology, I can fully understand the meaning of a statement like "In a controlled study of 1000 patients, 7% responded favorably to placebo and 90% responded favorably to the drug." I don't have to know how it works to know that it does because the scientific method produces honest, unbiased results.

With that same lack of knowledge of those fields, I can take a culture of bacteria, observe them under a microscope and verify what strain they are by referencing the same materials biologists at the top of their field use, put a drop of antibiotic in the petri dish, and observe as the bacteria die and fail to reproduce.
It is accepted that HIV-1 is a mutation of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus that became pathogenic and transmissible in humans. HIV-2 is similar and has been traced back to a species of Old World monkey in West Africa. A sequence of lentivirus (the same genus of virus as HIV) DNA has been found to be embedded in the genetic code of a species of Lemur that is immune to similar lentiviruses and has been in the species' genetic code for roughly 14 million years, indicating that similar viruses have existed for at least that long.

The claim that it is a man-made virus has come up repeatedly and in each case their has been either no evidence to support the claim, and in many cases there is evidence that specifically contradicts those claims.

Widely held by whom?

Putting cheap rhetoric aside, I don't deny that these things may have an impact on cancer rates. But is this worthy of damning science altogether, or is it worthy of damning human society? What is to blame? Science or our use of it? Perhaps we should do some soul searching to find out a better way to live that doesn't involve dispensing of surgical procedures, antibiotics, electricity, and important advances of personal hygiene.

Wow. How old is this thinking? 50 years? 100 years? Older?

If you want to call it male, then it would be best to view it at a "protector" of humanity. Science protects humanity from a harsh universe by seeking to understand it and to thwart the things that would destroy us. Science is the protector of our world, for the only way to prevent the ignorant from destroying it is by developing new practices and technologies. In order to do this, it requires advance scientific endeavours. That is the way I'd view science as male if there is such as way of calling it. However, it is also female in that it is a "nurturer." It determines what is wrong in humans and the world and seeks to make it better. It seeks better ways of living and doing things, as it wants the best out of everyone and everything.

Creationism is of no help in this matter. Actually, it would be harmful. This is one reason it shouldn't be taught alongside scientific topics. It's theology, so keep it there or along with philosophy. Creationism should only be taught at the post-secondary level or in private religious schools.

So, yeah, I think science is both male and female, like most things. [That is, if one still likes to think along these lines.]

The dark side of science is not to be overlooked. But this does not make science inherently evil (or male, if you think these are synonymous). My parents would both be dead if it weren't for science. Actually, I likely would be too, and so might you.

it seems that several things are getting mixed up here.

first off there is a genre problem: is the development/evolution of life a properly scientific or religious question? who decides that?

personally, i don't find religious explanations to be compelling, and many in this thread obviously don't either--but that's not really the issue.
who decides in a public school, say, where to put questions regarding evolution? if it's a scientific question, then at least some of the standards of scientific explanation can be said to obtain. by that i mean when the question is classified as scientific, certain standards obtain for what counts as evidence, what kind of narrative is admissible, that kind of fit there needs to be between evidence & explanation.

what this classification would resolve then is the matter of which type of explanation counts and which do not.

in a public school context, where would such a decision be made?
probably at the level of setting the ciriculum, yes?

if creationists wanted to be consistent, they would not be trying to get their beliefs taught in science classes as if they were a viable alternative explanation for data understood in more or less science-based terms: they'd be trying to get the space in which the question of the origin of life moved to something like a religion course.
and that would amount to a decision about what kind of question it is.
and deciding that would also decide what kind of explanation is and is not legitimate.

that seems to me to be the underlying issue here: what kind of question is being asked when one asks about the origin of life.

second, there is a problem with the assumption that science is a single entity, that it occupies a position of producing entirely "objective" or non-problematic information. like anything else, in principle scientific results should be approached critically, engaged, interpreted. the problem is obviously the nature of technical language involved & the ways in which access to that language is distributed socially.
the one place i agree with strange famous is in the claim that would lead in this direction, to advocating a critical relationship to scientific information. but i don't see the need to go from there in the direction he goes in. i understand the critiques of scientific rationality that are being kinda mangled in his post--i just dont see any reason to go there.

at the same time, these professions of Faith in this abstraction called Science (btw what does that word refer to? are theoretical physics and, say, botany doing the same thing? do they use the same language games? are they parsing the world in the same way? how so? you could think about the divergent understandings of, say, entropy that happen when you shift from physically-based to bio-system based systems...but that's another matter)---these professions of Faith are kinda quaint.

as are the accompanying claims that Science=Reason and so Religion=the opposite. it's not so simple. if it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation because religions would have long ago imploded. this isn't simply to stand the above on its head either...it's to say that Religion is no more a single thing than is Science.

so the debate has headed into a goofball space.
but carry on.
it's fun anyway i suppose.

Strange Famous, please stop derailing this thread. I'm more than happy to discuss your view on science in the philosophy forum but we are dealing with a very real social and political issue here: knowledge being obfuscated by religious organizations; dogma being passed as science; and why our society is willing to allow such behavior.

This is equivalent to scientist walking into a religious gathering and claiming that evolution disproves the existence of God. We don't see biology teachers demanding that natural selection get equal time with Genesis at the pulpit.

In many way I view the Creationist movement behavior as people literally closing their eyes and rejecting knowledge and understanding of our world. I find this very disturbing.

But evolution is not a fact, it is a theory.

The true arrogance being displayed is those who state - with straight faces even - that the theory they believe in should be taught and no other rival theory.

I repeat, there are very well thought out and argued theories suggesting that extra terrestial beings have assisted the process of human development. These stories are supported by folk history and mythology. They should be taught alongside the view of the a 6000 year earth, alongside the view that the earth is an accident of chaos.

You are so entrenched in your close minded view that you cannot even see what you propose for what it is. Evolution as an existing thing is generally agreed upon. Evolution as a theory of the development of plant and animal life on earth, unaided by anything else - is a very long way from being accepted.

Science itself is dogmatic, error strewn, pitiful... it is one lense through which the world can be viewed and explained, and it is a rather poor one. I have already clearly shown the failure of science to ever see beyond its own paradigm and the limitations of its own knowledge.

You can give a million examples - from ghost sightings, to the okapi (when African villagers reportered the animal, "science" declated it couldnt exist and must be a myth. What those people had clearly seen was discounted because "science" had not seen it - so by the rules of science the only possible answer is that most Africans are superstitious children who cannot tell the difference between an animal and a myth. The okapi only existed once it was discovered by the western scientists. I can give many examples of the blindness and arrogance of science... I hope that, while are children have an understanding of it, they also shall be taught of its immense weakness.

You can't get higher than a theory in science. "Laws" as such do not exist. Remember that whole "Theory of Gravity" thing? Based on evidence, just like evolution.

Teach religion in religion class, science in science class. It's just that simple. Creationism has no evidence, therefore, there is no reason to believe in it, much less teach it in a classroom.

No there are not. The fictional story of "Stargate", and the character Dr. Daniel Jackson are just that, fictional. Again, no evidence, no reason to believe.

Basically what you are saying is that "evolution occurs in small steps". As that is patently obvious. However, why do you not understand that all of those small steps over time add up to evolution on a large scale?

Maybe to religious persons, but highly educated persons, and countries have a very high acceptance of evolution. Oh, and 99% of the scientific community supports it. Not a very long way away.

Science is pitiful? You have clearly shown nothing. Science constantly overcomes its own limitations. Otherwise our technology would have never progressed. Just as a quick example, there is a 17 mile long atom smashing machine that is attempting to solve the origins of the universe. If that is not expanding our limitations of knowledge, I don't know what is.

When you provide evidence, science listens. When you provide research in peer reviewed journals, science listens.

You bash science, and attempt to undermine it. However, I'd love to see you go a day without it. Science has done more to improve the human condition in a single year then religion has ever done. Creationism and those who preach it give nothing to this world, they only hold science back.

You can keep your ghost-sighting, all knowing deity worshiping ideas to yourself. Me and most of the rest of the people on this forum will continue to be logical people that don't believe in a big magic man in the sky.

Nobody will dispute this. But a scientific theory is not just someone's whimsy. It does not exist in a vacuum. It has to be peer reviewed. Tested. Repeated.

We have still not full explained Gravity but there are number of Theories that explain how it works. Isaac Newton had one and it was improved upon by Einstein. Theories changes as more information is discovered through observation and experimentation. The key being that each new Theory brings us to a better understanding of the mechanics of our Universe.

Evolution too is a Theory like this. It has been postulated and tested and, in my opinion, is the best explanation we have.

I suppose one could postulate and support the Creationist point of view on things but when it comes down to it, it requires Faith. Not observation. Faith. It is a belief in an intangible. I am can imagine a scenario in which I would come to believe a Creationist vision of the world but it would involve something like a signature on the fijords of Norway (i.e. something tangible).

Tell me Rival THEORY of evolution.
Not Beliefs, THEORY.

I dont' understand why, evenif you're saying that science is currupted pitiful and all sort of things, evenif you're saying that Creationism, extraterrestial...etc... are NOT science, you wanna teach alongside evolution in the Science class. Is an oximoron!!

Creationism is not a Theory, Aliens enslaving humans and so on are not scientifics Theories, they are only beliefs.
And so must teached in the class that teaches beliefs, not in the ones that teaches scientific theories. Creationism must be teached in the religion class, alongside Christ miracles and religious dogmas, things that surely can be accepted but absoluty NOT by the scientific point of view, not in the class where scientific point of view is teached.

Science SURELY is partial, It's born to be that way: considering one step per time little part of what we call reality (and what is the reality itself can be said a LOT of things). There are many things that for now, maybe forever, science cannot explain.
But Science is made for, step by step, fully understand and use and manipulate the things that it can explain, for the beautiful and the useful that can be made with scientific knowledge.

So is perfectly reasonable that someone beliefs in things that science is not yet understood, is not perfectly reasonable to pretend that this beliefs can be accepted as scientific theories and teached alongside them.

Just a clarification: a theory contains a number of facts and hypotheses.

Within the theory of evolution, there are a good number of facts that have been uncovered over the years, many of which haven't been disproven and likely never will, as they seem to be a part of the "universal unchanging truth" you seem to value.

In your language, the facts about evolution are bits of knowledge of "God's universe" both on the level of microcosm and in the wider scheme of things.

Do you know how relatively easy it is to study the evolutionary mechanisms of plants and insects?

Strange Famous. I do appreciate providing us with an example of how people on the other side might view things. The viewpoint you present is very enlightening.

I encourage people in this thread to stand back and respond to SF's comment from a macro-cultural standpoint rather than trying to educate him personally on basic entry level science. Thank you!

again, it's the case tht darwinian evolution is a theory, but it's a theory that functions as explanatory within certain rules---so within a social & cognitive environment defined by interaction with a genre of thinking. creationism simply does not function as a scientific explanation of fuck all. but it also doesn't and can't operate by the same rules concerning evidence, fit between explanation and evidence, etc. it just doesn't. intelligent design was an attempt to adapt creationism to a more scientific type of explanation & it's a pretty dismal failure.

that said, it is simply not the case that darwinian evolution is not without its problems. for example, the underlying problem that darwin confronted in assembling the narrative followed from the nature of classifications--genus species etc--which posited each bio-system as a discrete thing or object. the question was how to account for one type of object giving way to another in the context of a developmental history that was understood as single. that there'd be a single history is a residuum of christianity--why should that be the case? that biological systems are comprehensible as types of objects (so that the transformation of one type to another becomes a permuation question really, in the way that one could make a table into a hat by introducing elements of hat into a set of features table and eliminating features of table to accomodate them)...alot of recent work in dynamical systems theory has pushed thinking about biological systems pretty far away from the paradigm of objects and in doing that has opened up space for thinking biological evolution in quite different terms than did darwin. it enables an abandonment of the assumption that the history of biological evolution is single, and has undermined the sense of separateness system/environment and has made the timeline required to explain evolution into something quite different. but it also pushes the whole way of thinking of biological systems even further away from the residual christianity that informs what darwin was thinking in the middle of the 19th century--so it'd be even more unacceptable for creationists than the relatively positivist model of evolution that darwin outlined.

the point is that evolution as darwin outlined it is a theory, tied to particular philosophical assumptions and certain ambient socio-cultural factors which are written directly into the theory itself.
but the conclusion is not therefore science is bunk--the conclusion is that scientific theories are heuristics that guide particular types of investigation, that science is really a form of practical philosophy that requires critical engagement.

there's more, but i gotta go.

roachboy's last couple of posts are well worth reading. They do well to summarize the inherent challenges with this issue. I don't think anybody said that the theory of evolution is a solution that's cut & dried and in the bag. They're still working on it, as they are working on other areas of scientific endeavour. Consider the work also being done on the atomic level and how they're still expanding and adding to the basis of Newtonian physics.

I think what is of most concern on a practical level is how we approach science on the level of basic education. A basic education should teach actual knowledge, even if it's incomplete and still being figured out. This essentially excludes Creationism from a scientific classroom, well, because there aren't any facts that support it, and then you have Creationists who don't engage in the scientific method and so don't jump through the same hoops the members of the scientific community do before their work is accepted as worthy of study and education.

I don't see how this is even an issue. In my mind it would be like introducing the practices of witchcraft as viable working alternatives to the theories we have in psychology, and then doing so also with alchemy in chemistry, astrology and the geocentric model of the universe in astronomy, preformationism in biology, flat- and hollow-earth theories in geography, humoralism in medicine, and numerology in mathematics.

Knowledge is knowledge. Faith is faith. Let's keep things straight.

And yet the majority of people DO believe in God

Most people that don't support Creationsim being taught in schools or in museums believe in god. Most people that understand an know evolution to be real believe in god.

I repeat - the THEORY of evolution - ie, the way species can change to adapt to their environment and pass these characteristics on by these adaptions making them more successful - is supported by some evidence and should be taught

The RELIGION of evolution - from men who believe God is a "magic man in the sky" and that all humanity can be linked to single cell pond slime by a series of millions of random chances and pure unthinking chaos... is one explanation of many as to what the world is about and who we are. It is one I dont dind convincing in the slightest

_

It is entirely appropriate to teach religious views in schools and museums - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and every other major religion. Each of these religions has a story about creation that is important for understanding human culture. These theories should not be taught as facts, but as idea's and beliefs - just as the accidental universe, or human development created by ET are beliefs can be taught as a belief. It is not appropriate to tell children we know what the soul is, what the origin of humanity is, the universe - these things cannot be taught as facts because they are not known as facts.

The theory of evolution as a science - as a little theory about how the rhino grew a horn or something - is rather a small thing compared to what we think about creation.

We see the true colours of the average atheist in threads like this - look how patronising Mantus is to me, look how anyone who believes in God is a moron, a simpleton, a superstitious idiot to these elitists.

They are out of touch with what the people believe, and they of course cannot see that their own blind faith in the sum of human knowlede is so misguided. How incredible to look at human history and yet decide that humanity today knows all the answers - and the things we cannot test with our science (ghosts, God, okapi's) are all just children's fairy tales.

And hark at this guy Mantus talking to me:

Patronising people like that might work in the coffee shop while you and your fellow "intellectuals" deride (behind their backs) anyone who owns a televiion or buys non fair trade chocolate bars - but I can go the distance with anyone on this board in an argument!

Ummm....not when you have no clue what you're talking about, you can't. And, as usual, you don't. Just like in the "Guns for bears" thread, just like in the "Is MMA A Sport" thread, and just like in your "I'm not sexist, but that shit a'int fer wimmin!" thread. Your version of "going the distance" appears to consist of being whomped on, beaten to a pulp, carried out of the ring unconcsious, and then hauling yourself upright to declare victory long after the actual winner has departed.

Ballocks. I'm a theist (Christian, even!), and I haven't felt persecuted or patronised to, but I also know what I'm talking about when it comes to evolutionary theory and the scientific method. If you're beginning to sense a pattern, you might want to meditate upon it.

Two points:
1: You are creating a false dichotomy. There is no difference between the two scenarios you posit except time scale. The observable process of evolution, which you acknowledge in your first paragraph, -leads to- the longer-term processes and changes you describe in your second paragraph. They are the same process, indivisible, with the only difference between the two being that the second scenario typically takes place over much longer periods of time.

2: The theory of evolution is the only one, of all the various hyptheses you present, which is supported by observable evidence. These is no evidence, zero, nada, nothing...to support the idea that humans (or any other form of life with the possible exception of viruses; some interesting work being done here in re comet dust) have any extraterrestrial origin. Therefore, it is the only one which belongs in any type of science classroom.

You are committing the simple, tempting fallacy of equating the scientific definition of theory with the vernacular. The components of theory in science are laid out in prose, while a law is written as an equation or series or equations. You are using the layman's definition of "theory," which is the equivalent of a scientific hypothesis. This is one of the fundamental disconnects between general understanding of science and understanding by scientists.

Similarly, responsible scientists are loath to describe something as "impossible" because one thing that scientific inquiry has found over the years is that such a statement is arrogant due to the incompleteness of human knowledge and carries with it a possibility, no matter how slight, of losing the trust of those who hear such a statement and subsequently find it proven wrong.

Darwinian evolution is just a theory, but it is the only theory that is supported by all of the verified and peer-reviewed evidence. Gravitation is just a theory, and it needs some revision. On large scales, massive bodies appear to exert an attractive force on all other massive bodies proportional to their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of distance between the objects. Further study indicates that this force is not carried over distance in the same way that electromagnetic force is, but rather manifests as a distortion in spacetime.

This does not work on a quantum scale, therefore it needs refinement. Rather than stubbornly cling to an outdated theory or shrug their shoulders and give up, scientists from around the world have come together and built an unbelievably complex machine to help us get to the bottom of it.
It is not arrogant to assert that the most accurate theory is the one that should be taught as such. It is upsetting to the rational mind that a theory (and please remember that we're using the scientific definition of the word) with hundreds of years of research having gone into refining and developing it should be taught as equal to a theory that is nonfalsifiable simply because proponents of that rival theory shout louder and claim that their truth lies in a very popular old book.

Evolution as an existing thing and evolution as a mechanism through which chance brought about life of increasing complexity over a period of billions of years are one and the same. The fossil record will always be incomplete simply due to the relative rarity of living things having died in an environment conductive to fossil formation, but what we do have is enough that we can understand the evolution of organisms to a degree of accuracy sufficient that when fossils are found that fit into gaps, they are similar if not identical to what we have predicted.

Whether life or evolution were aided by an outside force is difficult to determine, and ultimately an unnecessary question. Evolution does not have gaping holes in the theory that require use to speculate on the interference of outside forces. If you wish to believe that the mutations that brought about new traits were divinely manufactured rather than the product of environmental factors or the normal mutation rate of genetic material is your prerogative. It does not change the fact that genetic drift causes variations in allele frequency and gene expression in ways that may be beneficial or detrimental to an organism's probability of producing viable offspring.
It saddens me to see science anthropomorphized and dragged through the mud. Science is a process, nothing more, nothing less. To say that it is dogmatic and pitiful is not more meaningful than to claim the same of baking, welding, or swimming. By its nature, it seeks empirically and evidentially verifiable truth. These aspects make it self-correcting. There are certainly errors in data and theories produced by science, as shown above in my bit on gravity, but it is driven by a desire to gain knowledge. Like any process, it is hindered by human imperfections from time to time, but these problems will be resolved as further evidence clarifies disputes and questions.

To put it simply, science is not a shadowy cabal of sinister men in white labcoats deciding the future of theory and research. At its core it is a loose network of educated individuals in a distributed but collective quest for knowledge. To gain approval for your work, you must present verifiable evidence to those specialized in critical thinking.
At what point, or during what era, do you feel that evolution's explanation of where we came from breaks down? Do you accept that we evolved from earlier primates? Where do you feel that current theory is unclear enough that it is inadequate to explain our origins?
I would go even farther than calling it appropriate and say that it's fundamental to human interaction and understanding to be taught in a factual, unbiased way about as many of the world's religions and cultures as is possible. In addition to my opinion that accumulation of knowledge for its own sake is a virtue, I sincerely believe that learning about other cultures and religions fosters tolerance and acceptance and will serve to reduce conflict. If we could invest the money spent on war into furthering human knowledge, we'd be a lot better off, and in the words of astronomer John Dobson, "War is a terrible waste of people."
Can you clarify this? I'm not quite sure what your point is.
I have gone to great lengths to ensure that I am not engaging in ad hominem or straw man arguments in this thread. I would hope that anyone who sincerely cares about the position they are arguing would think to do the same. I have done both in the past and they are entirely counterproductive. You are engaging in the same fallacies by calling it "the true colors of the average atheist," though.
If any scientist believed that we knew all the answers, he would cease to work toward the pursuit of knowledge. While it sometimes results in errantly discounting something like the okapi that does exist, there is nothing wrong with demanding evidence to support claims. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and it is fair to dismiss that argument which is made without evidence, without evidence. It would benefit everyone to acknowledge that certain issues are matters of faith and some are matters of science. The only rational place to put the dividing line is between which hypotheses can be falsified and which cannot.
Arguing and debating are great. Either you come out of it stronger or you learn something new.

Evolution offers - for example - absolutely no explanation of the soul. It is not a complete theory of humankind at all.

Science doesn't cover things for which there are no evidence. There's no evidence for the existence of a soul, therefore science doesn't have anything to say on the matter.

Well, that's not true. Anthropology, sociology and psychology can all talk about the idea of the soul in great detail. The idea of the soul exists, just not the soul itself.

Most science-related musing on the soul were/are the realm of philosophy—consider Descartes' mind/body problem.

i'm not sure what you're on about regarding "the soul"---there's alot of work in cognitive science & cognitive linguistics (for example) on the biological bases of mind (the subject, questions of the nature of subjectivity, etc.)---psychology is kinda about this cluster of questions.
the discourse of the soul might not be used, but the same kind of areas are objects of investigation from all kinds of angles.

Yeah, but then we get different levels of the sciences. When you consider the "hard sciences," you get the problem of not being able to locate the soul. I mean, where is it? Where do you keep yours, roachboy?

in a box under my bed. every few days i feed it some kibbles.


anything that interrogates the nature of subjectivity is plumbing the space that the soul once occupied.

I see evidence of the existence of the human soul every second I am awake. Again - you state your own view as if it is a fact. I wonder what gives you the authrity to make declarations such as:

"The idea of the soul exists, just not the soul itself."

To say "I dont believe in God" is fine, but you say "God factually does not exist" - how are you so sure?

There is no evidence of a soul. None. You need to understand what "evidence" means.

He would not say "god factually does not exist". Rather, he would say "There is no evidence for the existence of god, therefore, there is no reason to believe in the existence of god."

There is no evidence for "God", Zeus, or any other deity. There is just as much evidence for the flying spaghetti monster as there is for god.

I think you must accept that words do not necessarily mean what you alone want them to mean - but have generally accepted meanings.

"Evidence" does not mean "something a guy who names himself stare at the sun believes is tested by the criteria he personally believes to be the only valid ones"

I feel emotions - which no animal does. By this I see evidence of the soul

I see works of art - which no animal can create. By this I see evidence of the soul

I see beauty - which no animal can comprehen. By ths I see evidence of the soul.

This could go on and on but I've made the point clearly enough.

You don't seem to understand animals. By the first half of your claim, this would mean that animals do indeed show evidence of having a soul. You merely need to observe canine behaviour enough to know that animals have emotions.

Again, you don't seem to understand animals. Do they have souls as well, then?

There's this:
Match the painting with the artist: gorilla, elephant, child, real artist

And this:

human beings are not animals. Animals are incapable of feeing.

You know that humans are mammals, right? And that we share over 95% of the same DNA as chimpanzees? Are you going to say the 5% difference is "human stuff" that "puts us out of the animal kingdom completely"?

And if (non-human) animals are incapable of feeling, then why are there laws against animal cruelty? And why does my dog go absolutely berserk when my SO comes home from work? Why does she seem dejected when my SO is at work? And what of animal behaviorists? Do they not exist as well?

Oh, then there's this:

No, I am not saying that "our DNA" is the essential difference between humans and monkeys

I am saying that our soul is the essential difference

Appying human characteristics to animals (like pet owners who think their pets love them as a child would, rather than simply identify with them as a part of a pack for example) is an understandable error, but an error none the less.]

That fact that some elephants investigate some bones they find does not mean that they are capable of feeling sorrow, or in fact capable of anything other than brute animal instincts of - eat, avoid danger, mate, defend territory...

well, strange, that's all lovely. i'm particularly interested in your 18th century theory of art as expressive of some Spirit. it seems a bit at cross purposes with a materialist viewpoint, but hey no matter (literally).

when you say that you feel emotions & animals dont...all you're saying is that you have a linguistic capability which is knit into your perceptual apparatus in a fundamental way that enables you to name certain affect clusters as emotions and which also gives you the possibility of making self-referential statements.
so because we operate in a linguistically-mediated fashion, you can name (and so have) emotions (say) and because you can make recursive statements can tell others you have x or y emotion and imagine that, in the doing, some sense of what you're talking about transmits (even though it probably doesn't except in the most general sense)

you also say that your viewpoint is limited by that capability to the extent that it recognizes no other systems of communication as communication at all. this is of a piece with another problem: for you your experience is an experience; in attempting to understand other types of animals, your experience is limited to observation and inferences. so from a viewpoint shaped and limited by a specifically human relation to language--which is perhaps the central defining characteristic of being-human, the routing of dynamical system performances through the medium of language--you conclude that only humans feel. but that's a circle. all it does in the last analysis (engels--gotta love him) is say that you are human and so is your viewpoint.

this is not to say that therefore every other type of biosystem feels in the way humans would understand it.
but there are obviously any number of scales and any number of modes of performing imbrication with environments.
fact is that neither you nor anyone else knows what if any gradation there is at the level of experience, and the contents of experience (which would obviously include affect or emotion) may or may not link us to other biological systems.
and your way of thinking couldn't get you further away from even starting to get there because it's predicated on some quaint notions of being-human which render it the center of all creation. so some god enters the picture to explain that specialness that you create by repeating limitations of viewpoint as if they were the opposite of limitations.

because we seem to like categories and because in english (in particular) nouns which name features in the world tend to classify by abstract criteria (a mountain is a mountain because of its general shape--there are other ways of thinking space--in terms of pathways, say---that would never get you to an abstract notion of mountainness. there's a huge historical linguistics area in this kind of divergence, which points to linkages between overall cultural rationalities and the characteristics of languages as they develop. a kinda dialectic i suppose) and because we like classification systems, we combine the two (or did across the 18th century in particular) into these neat little grids that talk about biological systems as if they were objects in the world and by talking about them as objects impute distinctions (between object and environment, say, or between objects) that are mostly functions of the nouns we use. it's functional to think and talk that way in certain contexts, including our own (the circle that links rationality to expression back to rationality) but that doesn't mean the classifications are accurate in the sense that they may not enable a coherent understanding of what is so classified (particularly once you try to move beyond instrumental relations---the ways a community uses a particular species, say...)

it all gets quite complicated, running down this pathway, because it gums up some very basic assumptions about being-in-the-world as you and i tend to think of it because of the fact that we're embedded in a particular linguistic community.

i suppose in the end one chooses the circular relation to being that is most aesthetically amusing.
so if its flattering to assume that the advantages and limitations (in equal measure seemingly) that follow from being-embedded in a linguistic community (which is a condensed expression of a social history of being-in-the-world) necessarily imply the existence of some god which explains its specialness (an idea that follows mostly from the fact that you occupy such a position, and so) then who am i get in the way of this happy-place?

it's not necessary to move from there to quibbles over whether the god character exists or not--in such a debate the question is not the logic that would get one person to that place and another to a different one---the debate is really (again) about the framework within which debate can then happen. which criteria count, which do not.
suffice it to say that for the most part i do not see the existence of some god as required to explain much of anything.
i don't exclude the possibility that there might be such a thing--but i do think that if there is such a thing, neither you nor i know anything about it. so "god" is just another name.
but have fun with it.
millions do.

Strange, if you say we have souls, then why don't animals have them? Are they not living beings bound to this earth as well? What is a soul exactly?

And I'm not sure what human characteristics you speak of. All I know is that animals clearly demonstrate behavioural patterns and emotional qualities. They aren't on the same level or of the same patterns as humans, but they are there nonetheless. You continue to demonstrate how little you know about animals, both human and non-human. Maybe this has to do with what roachboy posted before me.

You don't seem to want to accept the fact that humans are a part of the animal kingdom. I'm not sure where we can go from here.

I usually don't jump in debate threads that are way out of my league, but I'd like to hear from you about this, Strange: Do you think feral people have souls? Or how about 'dem cavemen hunter-gatherer folks....you know, just before civilization?

Tha Strange Famous talking is the evidence that talking without considering any evidence, every opinion can be elevated to reasonable fact.
Nothing to blame: that was the error of many philosophers, but in the 21° century maybe you should consider to study a little more what is an evidence and what are the basis of the modern logic and dialectics.

In the 21° century you CAN'T TELL that there are Evidence of a Human (and only human) Soul. Because, whatever you define "Soul", there are Evidence of that presence also in Animals. That is the de Cartes argument, 500 years old and stinks like a rotting corps. I know that is very famous point of view, but is completly in conflict with what we know.

Science don't tell that "There isn't a Soul because there is no evidence" or "There is no evidence for the existence of god, therefore, there is no reason to believe in the existence of god.".
Science tell that "There is no evidence for the existence of god" so is out of my buisness. I cannot state anything about that and I don't really care.

You wanna belive in god and soul and other stuff? Science got nothing to do, not even in negating it! In fact Science start with the assumption "Etsi Deus non Daretur" (but is a more complicated matter), in little words it state only that God, Soul, Ghost and all META-Physical (in Greek means beyond-Physics! How can Physics tell stuff about things that are beyond it?!) stuff doesn't systematically interfere with experiments and natural measures.

You are fighting a your PERSONAL idea of science

In this I completly agree. You don't have religion classes where you live?


We know what is a certain definition of a Soul, and so we can scientifically talk about it in a phsicological or antropological point of view. Science cannot surely talk about Soul in a religion point of view as "the thing that remain when you die". He cannot even state it doesn't exist: is not a Science's buisness, is not what can be studied with the scientific method.
We know about the origin of humanity and the universe following a huge amounts of facts and tailoring theory upon them. The only way that humanity has been able to tailor a theory that fit all the facts collected in centuries about the origin of species is the theory of evolutions, the only way that humanity has been able to tailor a theory that fit all the facts collected about the origin of the universe is the Theory of the Big Bang.
These are the best explanation we can give at the present state-of-the-art Science, and sorry if it's a small thing...

It is not claimed to be a philosophical or theological theory. It offers an explanation for the biological development of life, and at this point all verified evidence supports the theory. It is entirely open to revision in light of new evidence.
The most famous example would be Koko the gorilla, who has directly expressed emotion toward humans and others, and raised several pet cats, and mourned them when they died.

You are also at odds with primate experts, who have reached a consensus that nonhuman primates feel emotion and are capable of cognition to a much greater degree than had been assumed until recently.
Mama gorilla mourns her dead baby - Science- msnbc.com
"BERLIN - A gorilla at a zoo in the German city of Muenster is refusing to let go of her dead baby's body several days after it died of unknown causes.

Allwetter Zoo spokeswoman Ilona Zuehlke says the 3-month-old male baby died on Saturday but its 11-year-old mother continues to carry its body around. Zuehlke says such behavior is not uncommon to gorillas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/sc...gewanted=print
"“Fifty years ago, we knew next to nothing about chimpanzees,” said Andrew Whiten, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. “You could not have predicted the richness and complexity of chimp culture that we know now.”

Jane Goodall, a young English woman working in Africa in the 1960s, began changing perceptions. At first, experts disputed her reports of chimps’ using tools and social behavior. The experts especially objected to her references to chimp culture. Just humans, they insisted, had “culture.”

“Jane suffered early rejection by the establishment,” Richard Wrangham, a Harvard anthropologist, said. “Now, the people who say chimpanzees don’t have emotions and culture are the ones rejected.”

The new consensus framed discussions in March at a symposium, “The Mind of the Chimpanzee,” at the Lincoln Park Zoo here. More than 300 primatologists and other scientists reviewed accumulating knowledge of chimps’ cognitive abilities.

After one session, Frans de Waal of Emory University said that as recently as a decade ago there was still no firm consensus on many of the social relationships of chimps. “You don’t hear any debate now,” he said."


"The emotions of caring and mourning have been observed, as in the case of the chimp mother that carried on her back the corpse of her 2-year-old daughter for days after she had died. After fights between two chimps, scientists said, others in the group were seen consoling the loser and acting as mediators to restore peace.

Devyn Carter of Emory described the sympathetic response to a chimp named Knuckles, who was afflicted with cerebral palsy. No fellow chimp was seen to take advantage of his disability. Even the alpha male gently groomed Knuckles."

I thought this could be fruitful but it's seeming more and more like going in circles. I think I was being naive.

All this stuff about apes... it doesnt mean anything

The behaviour of a chimp or a gorilla is to human behaviour what the speech of the parrot is to human language.

They copy certain behaviour because they are rewarded with food or attention. It does not mean anything to them other than an action which is rewarded with food or some other thing from their human masters

You, my friend, -really- need to read up on some of the research that's been done with Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Bonobos in regards to sign language. The conclusion of the last 30-odd years of research in this field, with multiple representatives of all three of the above-mentioned species, is that the only reason such "Great Apes" cannot speak at least rudimentary English (hardest language in the world to learn, BTW, with a vocabulary 5x greater than Chinese) is that their vocal cords aren't built for it. Kanzi, one of the most eloquent of such research subjects, had a vocabulary of over 1,000 words last time I checked, and can both construct and deconstruct simple sentences, as well as define words off the cuff.

Do you come into -all- your debates with only your completely unsupported opinions to buttress your arguments, or is it only something you do on TFP?

There are parrots that can mimic up to 1000 words also, but they cannot "talk".

There is a difference between repitition and understanding.

Nevermind. I retract my above advice, since you apparently lack either the patience or the necessary skills to read through a single paragraph, let alone those needed to digest even simple anthropological or primatological data and research methods. Please go back and, very slowly, re-read that part about construction and deconstruction of sentences, and providing impromptu definitions. This is not repetition, this is cogent language by any definition recognized in the linguistic or philological fields (ie by people who do this stuff for a living). Unlike parrots, these Great Apes are capable of asking for things, people, and pets by name, and will reject anything other than the person, item, or pet requested, repeating their initial request until the desired item/person/pet is brought to them. Likewise they have been observed asking questions and further probing the answers they are given. Kanzi has been known to carry on remarkably detailed conversations regarding his surroundings and favorite foods, conversations which -he- initiates with his handlers. Koko the Gorilla was known to do the same, and was able to clearly articulate concepts of death and mortality after the death of her first kitten, "All Ball," an event documented in print and on film by the National Geographic Society.

You are quite correct about the difference between repetition and understanding. It appears, however, that you haven't the faintest clue what that difference -is-. As usual, you are talking out of your arse.

Koko the gorilla has already been mentioned, and N'Kisi the parrot is able to understand sentence structure, syntax, and even abstract concepts like humor.
http://web.archive.org/web/200605190...re/3430481.stm

Here's another one on language in animals.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animal world's communication kings

Strange, you've not read about half this thread. I can't speak for anyone else, but it's getting frustrating and it seems like you're trolling. Are you willing to actually listen to the other side?

I know we have slipped off topic a bit , but this story of Donny the doberman,
is also compelling.




I'm tending to agree with Will's above statement, for the most part.

So now you want to claim that to believe in God is so outrageous that it is "trolling"?

I think that it shows how out of touch the average atheist is with the common people. The majority of people believe in a God who was the creator of the universe and manking, they believe in the soul, they believe in all of the things I have talked about.

The elitist views of some may consider that faith is worthy of contempt and scorn - but the yet these people hold a faith in "science" which is as blind as the worship of any religion. Their acts of faith seem to be the feeding of their own sense of superiority.

Wow. Just... wow.

You really don't read what people are saying. It's astounding.

Science is not a religion. It does not require faith. Science accepts that what we know today can change tomorrow. Science is not full of absolutes. In fact, if a scientist were to prove that there was a god, it would certainly rock the scientific community but it would be come the Theory Up Which All Is Explained. (not that we have one of those currently).

Religion is just the opposite. It requires faith in something intangible. It requires a belief in absolutes. There is not grey area with God.

Unlike some atheists, I am not out to convert. So long as it doesn't effect me, I don't care if you believe in god. The minute you start to impose your god upon me, in whatever form, it becomes a problem for me and I am moved to do something about it.

what makes you think that people who work in the sciences do not also believe in a god? einstein did and aspects of the theory of general relativity built in that assumption.

it's a silly binary game this thread's come to...

How many time I must tell you that religion and science aren't mutually exclusives (but in fact perfectly conciable when you know them and recognize a role for both of them) before you read it?

Maybe I should spam your PMs folder.... :paranoid:

Wow... I was finding this thread interesting and enlighting untill SF has derailed it completly. I could actually see both sides ( even SF view) untill he started down the "animals have no feelings" path. You lost all credibility to your agruement. I can't say for sure that creationism or evolution is right or wrong. It's interesting to me to learn more about each subject. But the minute that you state for a fact that animals have no emotions or feelings, I can't take anything you say serious. Too bad a good thread like this had to get railroaded off course.

No, ignoring what people are posting and sticking to your inane point regardless is trolling. And, as I said above, most people that understand and accept evolution believe in god. In fact, there are atheists that don't accept evolution. This has jack to do with belief in god, so don't play the religious victim card. No one here's going to feel sorry for you for being a persecuted Christian because you're not being persecuted for your faith in god, you're being questioned because you've clearly not thought this stuff through and you're unwilling to listen to others on the subject.

I wonder what makes this particular statement turn you off, as opposed to any of SF's other inane claims.

Wow...

Strange Famous not only do you lack a basic understanding of the subject at hand but it appears that you have a personal agenda here which is completely incompatible with this discussion.

You are clearly not here to learn or discuss the issue of viewing creationism as a science but have a goal to bait, derail and frustrate other posters.

Please stop posting in this thread.

once upon a time when freud walked the land and people read him, a distiction floated out from his work or maybe from someone else's but no matter, a distinction between affect and emotion.

the distiction was emotion has words attached.
affect doesn't.

so to say that non-human animals "don't have emotions" is basically to say that they don't have the same kind of language as humans have, which is, so far as we know, kind of a duh point.
but that doesn't preclude affect, which does not preclude feeling.


this is pretty elementary stuff.

If you'd be so kind, I'd like you to define "science" in your own words. Science doesn't always get the greatest reputation these days, and I think that the general understanding of what it is has warped your perception. I've been meaning to start a thread on science in general and I should have time tomorrow to do it. I welcome you to join us in that thread and encourage you to discuss it as I get the feeling that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is from your arguments in this thread. I hope that you take take that statement as an honest critique rather than an insult.
What have you offered to explain to him why he is wrong rather than simply telling him that he is and expecting him to believe you?

Science is the religion of humanism. Science =the blind, unblinking, faith that humanity today has reached the peak of all knowledge

The funny thing is that it is a very destructive religion.

Today's scientist will always rubbish yesterday. Tomorrow is always beyond his imagination.

Wow, your understanding of science is really terrible. Science is, in fact, pretty much the exact opposite.

Wow, hmm. Seems like SF has a hand in similar multipaged threads everywhere like this. I'm starting to think he's just been trolling all this time. If so I've never seen such a persistent troll.

If you're serious; science, by definition is the opposite of that. Now you can harp on the people claiming to do whatever in the name of science all you want, but that's people not science. Science is a systematic study of knowledge and requires no faith. What you're doing is like confusing "grammar nazis" with real nazis.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Science Vs Religion.

The fact that this topic is always so hotly debated on the internet is very telling. It's telling because it's important that we discuss it.

I love science. It is a quest for knowledge and understanding. I also love it because it's also plain fucking interesting. I also love religion, though I myself am not religious.

The human time line isn't even a spec on the Earths time line. The Earths time line isn't even a spec on the galaxies time line. And if you point Hubble into empty space it shows us vast galaxies so far away that what we see isn't even there anymore because the light took so long to get to us in the first place. Ghosts of a billion years past.

Yet, in all this vastness of the universe exists this strange anomaly of life. Not just that, but life that can question the origin of life itself. We can do lots of things, we can discover, create, design, feel, kill, land on the mood. Born from the animals. We're still just animals though. And any animal will tell you, that your mission is to survive, and that's it. You have to survive. Survival in its essence will push humanity to do and achieve more in our future than all the achievements in our entire human history combined. For starters, our stay on this planet is very finite.

But for us, to survive isn't the only thing that drives us. To understand what happens after we die drives us further. But we will never know that. Ever. The only way to find out what happens when you die is to die. And that's where you take a massive leap of faith that no science can ever prove or disprove. No religion will ever have the right answer. You or anyone you know can die at any moment for any reason. The question on everyones lips is what happens and what does that mean in the grander scheme.

Maybe it means nothing, maybe it means everything. Or maybe we should just worry about what's important here and now.

Science or Religion, they help us answer deeper questions we all ask. And sometimes, neither help at all. Actually, I'd venture to say that we all feel and ask things that can only be answered by ourselves, for ourselves.

One day I'll die, one day we'll all die. One day the Earth, Sun, galaxy, the universe, will all die. What do we mean then?

Maybe eastern philosophy is on the mark, enjoy the futility of it all and smile :)

Clearly you never encountered GunKid. Although slightly less intelligent than SF, GK was even more persistent. Despite being kicked off just about every gun/survival-related BB on the English-speaking 'web, he'd always come back with a new handle...dozens of times per forum per week. Annoying little shit's rotting in jail now.

But yes, this is SF's usual MO. Jump into a topic he knows nothing about, pull numbers/quotes/notions out of his ass, wave them in everyone's face while being roundly panned and shown to have no clue what he's saying, keep insisting that he's right and everyone knows he's right despite an utter inability to provide sources or even meaningful rhetorical backup for his assertions, and then leave after declaring victory. It's a very George W. Bush approach to debating.

That, except 100% not. 180 degrees not that, in fact.

I don't know where all this hate and fear comes from. Christianity teaches love and forgiveness, not hate and fear. So-called Christians sure stop acting Christian when it comes to things they feel threatened by.

Well, science is a failure. It still hasn't figured out how Adam lived for 930 years. :rolleyes:

I dont know why you think Im a Christian?

So called scientific progress has created the worst disasters in human history, as well as some of the greatest benefits.

When science is followed as a religion, rather than a tool for human advancement - it is a complete failure, morally and intellectually.

No one suggests that modern medicine or advancements in agriculture are often good things. And yet no one would suggest that - for example - the pollution of the air and water, the destrction of 1000's of species - are bad things. Science itself cannot tell the difference.

Science the religion rubbishes anything it cannot test - the spiritual side of the world - it is thusly an intellectual failure, a pathetically single minded way of understanding the world while blindly ignoring anything which falls outside of its paradigm and world view.

That statement in particular turned me off because I deal with animals everyday. I take care of 400 head of cattle on my family's ranch. Along with numberous dogs, cats, ect... I can see when my dog is scared, happy, ect... along with the other animals in my care. I can't offer alot of insight into religion vs science, but I'm eager to learn about it. But I do know a bit about animals and their behavior/emotions. ( Oh, SF's other comments make me laugh out loud too, I just shake my head in amusment.:shakehead:)

As a stockman,I presume you slaughter a fair number of cattle each year then?

Would you do so if you believed that cows had emotions as people do?

Well, I was trying to talk about what this thread was about before you took it over and it became all about you...

its not all about me, its all abut the people, who I represent to the best of my ability.4

The snide attacks of the intellectual minority ring very hollow outside of the coffee shop.

Yes. Both of them.

Would you agree, then, that the entirety of your argument can be reduced to the claim that technology and knowledge have advanced faster than we are able to fully understand their repercussion beyond the immediate and faster than we are able to ethically and responsibly use them?

The best way to close this:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg

The truth will be it own reward. When the theory is proven, and measurable reliable results from complete tests are predictable and accurate. Science will not have a worry, so why get so emotional about it now. That is a huge waiste of nervous energy. Hug your Mum instead.