|
5 registered members (AndrewAMD, SBGuy, Petra, flink, 1 invisible),
699
guests, and 6
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: AndersA]
#66526
03/29/06 15:23
03/29/06 15:23
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
If you define a scientist as a person who adheres to the scientific method, I think it's safe to state that "[a]ll scientists accept evolution" as a reasonable way to understand life.
No I would never define a scientist by your narrow-minded view of understanding the scientific method. I would define a scientist who looks at facts, not at interpretations of facts.
I scientist's job is to observe physical phenomena, not to make judgements about that phenomena.
Observing that chimps have a lot of the same DNA as humans is a real observation, making the claim that we evolved from chimps because of this observation is a leap of faith outside the realm of science.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: Grimber]
#66527
03/29/06 16:05
03/29/06 16:05
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Darwin was a great scientist, but he was born one hundred plus years ago. Its kind of funny how Christians argue points of the most popular evolutionary scientist, but not the most recent. Even now modern evolutionist smash his old theories and create new ones in an attempt to create better models to represent objective reality. This though, is the key difference. Good science isn't based on what we want to be true
I dont use Darwin in my arguments, I am well aware that his theories are dated. The only ones who have used Darwin in this thread was Matt, and he is on your side.
Your absolutely right, good science does not make their theories fit with what they want to be true.
@Grimber
Quote:
yes, science and theory is based on interpritation of messurable and definable facts.
religion is interpritation based on opinion. denominations and even within individual denomitions people are divided based on INDIVIDUAL interpritation.
at least with science if a fact disproves a theory that theory is reexamined or dismissed entirely.
Oh your right,.. absolutely right. Science is the superior method of determining physical truth. If any group will find the facts of this universe we live in, it will be science, not religion. I just reject theories who try to use science to back up their opinions.
I dont blame anyone for looking at scientific data to prove evolution, I just disagree when they state opinions as fact, it is no less untruthful than me stating that God created the earth as a fact. I have no proof of that, so I wouldnt claim it as a fact.
Quote:
the 'process of evolution' has been proven to occure time and again for decades. its of no fault of anyone else that the 'faithful' have a tendancy to ignore science with it doesn't fit their idealologies but will turn around and embrace it when it does. just as it has done time and again thoughout the history of the church
Not true. I embrace science fully when it has conclusive proof of something.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: NITRO777]
#66528
03/29/06 17:09
03/29/06 17:09
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
No I would never define a scientist by your narrow-minded view of understanding the scientific method. I would define a scientist who looks at facts, not at interpretations of facts.
Well, you're free to define whatever you want. But I'm afraid in our real world a scientist won't care much about your definition of a scientist - his job is to work on theories. That's what science is about. At least since the 17th centory.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: jcl]
#66530
03/29/06 17:30
03/29/06 17:30
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
But in our real world, a scientist's job is to work on theories.
Good. Just dont expect people to accept unsubstantiated, unproven theories just because someone calls themselves a scientist.
You have defined a scientist as someone who accepts the scientific method, I have not rejected the scientific method, I have only rejected the baseless assertion that the scientific method has proven evolution.
I posted a link up above showing that a majority of physicians believe in God and miracles, do you think that all of these physicians, which have a lot stronger biology background then any of us here, reject the scientific method?
I only reject the statement that "all scientist believe in evolution". It was stated without any proof and there is still no proof of the statement.
Therefore, putting aside the issue of evolution for the moment, I would have to say that anyone who accepts the statement that "all scientists accept evolution" is a fool. Pure and simple. There is absolutely no substantiation anywhere that prove this dumb statement to be true. It is a complete fallacy based on n o evidence whatsoever.
You havent even defined a scientist. I am the only one who came close to a true approximation of what a scientist is.
Anders statement that all scientists accept evolution if they accept the scientific method is not only wrong, its moronic.
Therefore, because it is clearly wrong, I have to assume that he has a warped definition of the scientific method, and it is his interpretation of the scientific method which I consider narrow minded and useless.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: NITRO777]
#66531
03/29/06 17:56
03/29/06 17:56
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
You're pretty quick with words like "moronic" or "narrow minded" when someone has a different opinion.
Low-level discussions about evolution vs. creationism often end up with arguing whether "all" or "not all" scientists accept evolution. However, everywhere, also in science, often are a few strange figures - like the piltdown fake guy whom Ran Man has posted. So, strictly speaking, "all" is not correct - I think it's quite possible that 0,01% of all scientists might believe in creationism. There are probably also 0,01% who believe that the earth is hollow.
However, the statement that 99,99% of all scientists accept evolution today is certainly correct. Draw your own conclusion.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: jcl]
#66532
03/29/06 18:15
03/29/06 18:15
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
You're pretty quick with words like "moronic" or "narrow minded" when someone has a different opinion.
Obviously you havent bothered to look at the statements of your peers on this forum when it comes to delieneation of character. I could post a LOT more derogatory remarks towards Christian ideas.
Quote:
But I'm afraid in our real world a scientist won't care much about your definition of a scientist - his job is to work on theories
Oh yeah, and you insinuate that aI am not a member of the "real world" because I dare challenge a narrow minded interpretation of the scientific method. Give me a break. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Quote:
However, the statement that 99,99% of all scientists accept evolution today is certainly correct. Draw your own conclusion.
Theres no data to draw conclusions from--its a complete fabrication on your part. You cannot just say that 99.99 % of all scientists accept evolution, you have no proof of that whatsoever. Are we supposed to believe you because you are the boss of Conitec?
Show some proof. At least I posted links, I showed something.
This is just a microcosm of the world at large. You have a bunch of people on this forum who are supposed to believe evolution because jcl or Matt_Aufderheide say so. This is the same thing that happens in high schools where students are supposed to believe evolution because the teacher says so.
They put a picture of monkey next to a man in a textbook and then pressure students into accepting it as scientific proof because they are the "teachers". And Christians are supposed to be the ones who are the sheep? Your a sheep if you believe evolution just because a "scientist" tells you it is true.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: NITRO777]
#66533
03/29/06 18:30
03/29/06 18:30
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 26
Derry, Maine
PennyWise
Newbie
|
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 26
Derry, Maine
|
Quote:
Your a sheep if you believe evolution just because a "scientist" tells you it is true.
I was taught that Earth is really about 5000 years old during old my Sunday school days. What does that make me?
Come to me.......... COME CLOSER.....!!!
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: PennyWise]
#66534
03/29/06 18:39
03/29/06 18:39
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
I was taught that Earth is really about 5000 years old during old my Sunday school days. What does that make me?
It doesnt make any difference what you were taught, it only matters what you believed. Im not saying I agree with the age of the earth being 5000 years, but I am curious as to why you believe it is not. What exactly do you know about radiometric dating?
The issue is not who taught you what, the issue is whether or not you found out the answers for yourself.
Also, nobody forced you to got to Sunday school, kids are forced to go to public school, and they are forced to study evolution.
If you had to go to sunday school blame your mother, dont blame Christianity.
|
|
|
Re: for doubters of God's existance
[Re: NITRO777]
#66535
03/29/06 19:09
03/29/06 19:09
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,753
Munich, Bavaria, South of Germ...
TripleX
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,753
Munich, Bavaria, South of Germ...
|
"You have a bunch of people on this forum who are supposed to believe evolution because jcl or Matt_Aufderheide say so. " everyone is under influences.. you, me and matt or jcl. The only important thing is that you can differ the influences in false and true (or also maybe true/false). "Theres no data to draw conclusions from--its a complete fabrication on your part. You cannot just say that 99.99 % of all scientists accept evolution, you have no proof of that whatsoever. Are we supposed to believe you because you are the boss of Conitec?" have you searched for data? you'll find a lot of data why and how much scientist believe in a religon / mircales etc. Why? because this people are suprised about this fact. BTW: You'll find a "proof" to everything in the world wide web. No matter if this proof is correct or not. " It doesnt make any difference what you were taught, it only matters what you believed. Im not saying I agree with the age of the earth being 5000 years, but I am curious as to why you believe it is not. What exactly do you know about radiometric dating?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_datinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth(btw.. have a look at the creation date of the earth  )
|
|
|
|
