real life wrote:edgarblythe wrote:You can interpret information pointing to evolution as pointing to purple people eaters. Don't make it so. Evolution does not tackle questions relating to creation. Therefore, you can think what you will and scientists won't argue with you. You just can't put it in the science classroom simply because you think it.
EB, let's not act naive.
Evolution-abiogenesis-Big bang are all sold in one slick package in the government school science classroom.
I don't know about that but all the creationism/ID bull is forced down people's throats at church ..... at least at school children are free to believe what they like unlike at church. At my highschool my advanced senior science teacher addressed both creationism and evolution(He obviously was more inclind to not support creationism because of the obvious and apparent gaps in reasoning). When my history teacher talked about charles darwin, he tried to make him sound like an idiot and that the theory of evolution and the big band were totally obsureded compared to some entity that created us to either choose to follow him or be tormented for eternity, and that the reason for sin and hell was that a talking snake made a woman eat an apple that made her smart? WTF
RexRed wrote:edgarblythe wrote:You have the inspiration, based on what you have observed. You seek evidence to build a theory. Finding evidence leads to conclusions based on repeating the process over and over and submitting to peer review. You can't do that with god, because there is no observable evidence.
The fact that we exist is proof of "creation", can't you see that? Creation is not even a theory... it is evidenced, testable, observable and reliably real...
No I do not see that ... the bible says that god formed adam from dust and breathed into him and gave him life? I mean that is obsolutely ridiculous. You fundies like to use the word create quite a bit but you never seem to go into the actual details of how we were created... because when you do you can see how unreasonable it is... but then again when you make up a god that can do anything you can simply explain away reason with "well god can do it because he's god."
jin_kazama wrote:real life wrote:edgarblythe wrote:You can interpret information pointing to evolution as pointing to purple people eaters. Don't make it so. Evolution does not tackle questions relating to creation. Therefore, you can think what you will and scientists won't argue with you. You just can't put it in the science classroom simply because you think it.
EB, let's not act naive.
Evolution-abiogenesis-Big bang are all sold in one slick package in the government school science classroom.
I don't know about that but all the creationism/ID bull is forced down people's throats at church ..... at least at school children are free to believe what they like unlike at church........
An odd perspective.
Church attendance is voluntary and many choices are available. The option of no attendance is also widely utilized.
School attendance is compulsory, and enforced by law; and public school kids usually have no choice which school they must attend, except in rare cases (an enlightened locality with school vouchers) or if they pay out of district tuition.
Eorl wrote:
Cosmology and Biology are such totally different sciences that the only time they ever get mentioned together is by paranoid defensive religious fanatics who think it's all part of a big conspiracy to disprove their gods and their magic.
Yeah
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
What a bunch of fanatics, trying to imply that the Big Bang and evolution are in any way to be considered together. I see what you mean, Eorl.
from
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_site_summary.html
Absolutely nothing pertaining to creationism/ID-iocy is observeable, testable, verifiable, or falsifiable; the proposition cannot even meet the requirements necessary to formulate a hypothesis, let alone propose an alternate theory. ID-iocy has produced no science, provided no evidence, explained nothing, and in fact cannot do so.
Science entails the formulation and testing of naturalistic explanations of observed natural phenomena. The discipline consists of collecting, recording, categorizing, comparing, testing, validating, and reconfirming data pertaining to an observed thing, condition, or state of being, with the intent of determining the natural principles which best explain that observed phenomenon. Science is wholly dependent upon, driven by, demonstrated, accepted natural law. Its conclusions and explanations must and may only derive from and be consistent with demonstrated, accepted natural law. Its conclusions and explanations must be testable through and verified by demonstrated, accepted natural law. And finally, its conclusions and explanations must and may only be ever subject to reassessment and revision predicate on the acquisition of verifiably superior data pertaining to the thing, condition, or state of being at study.
Webster defines science as "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena."
The Oxford English Dictionary defines science as "a branch of study which is concerned with a body of demonstrated truths or observed facts, systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain."
Quite simply, science is the means whereby we attempt ever more precisely to achieve understanding of the workings of the universe through logical analysis based on rigorous, systematic, multiply independently repeatable, uniformly consistent with prediction, cross-corroborative, empirically verifiable observation.
Religion and its offspring, creationism/ID-iocy, conform to precisely none of that.
Timber, just because Webster says "God" is not testable does not make it so...
Did Webster know something science does not? God is observable within his works and how he relates to his "creation"...
And, just because you my friend have not "tested" God does not make God not testable and verifiable... You don't seem capable of even considering this... This is where your spiritual progress has been halted.. If you do not believe there is a testable God you will not test God...
There are enough people who "believe" in God, are they all observing nothing?
Also a side note, many words in the dictionary are defined in a modern context and are not defined as used in the Bible's old English...
Old English was quite removed from our modern day meanings let alone Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew from which the English was translated...
So many Biblical words need to be understood in light of older meanings and not modern ones. Eastern meanings and customs not western... Webster was not the best authority on the meanings of Biblical words and figures.
This is why the Bible has it's own dictionaries...
Where did Timber say that Webster said "God is not testable"?
Chumly wrote:Where did Timber say that Webster said "God is not testable"?
Timber implies it by omission...
RexRed wrote:Chumly wrote:Where did Timber say that Webster said "God is not testable"?
Timber implies it by omission...
Such that you supply it by your perdition.
And in fact wholly of your own volition.
It's your imagination that induced the submission.
At this rate you'll fail fruition.
RexRed wrote:Chumly wrote:Where did Timber say that Webster said "God is not testable"?
Timber implies it by omission...
No, Rex, I do not; you project ... which, of course, though indefensible, is only to be expected.
Hehehe
Well, you imply that if science is observable then God is not...
God is just not observable with science...
I imply nothing, I point out science has discovered no evidence supportive of your proposition. Demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid, academically sound manner that religion be differentiable from superstition, and I assure you, I will accord your proposition all the respect and consideration it merits under that circumstance. Untill such time, I shall continue to accord your propostion all the respect and consideration its merits permit under the present circumstance.
or put another way, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply not observable with science.
Irish Pixies are not provable.
Aliens simply erase from our minds our memories of seeing them.
There's no way of knowing that Frodo didn't really take the ring to Mt Doom sometime in our distant past. Did a god put the knowledge of this in Tolkien's mind? Perhaps he's a prophet? A hobbit skeleton has been found after all.
REX, the point is that you can claim anything you like if you aren't expected to prove it. Scientists, on the hand, have to prove everything and willing open everything to the scrutiny of others.
You just don't get it, and I'm quite sure you're determined not to.
Many religionists are more than willing to take full advantage of what science has to offer when it suits them, while at the same time disenfranchising themselves from the disciplines science demands.
A perfect example is when one of their loved ones is in the hospital for a major operation, and they subsequently thank god the operation was a success; comical.
Like layers of an onion science can not peel back to the layers of spirituality.
That does not mean that science cannot measure the effects of spirituality but they cannot get at the essence of what it is exactly...
They can only see the manifestation of energy in the form of change but they cannot observe the essence of this energy.
We cannot really observe energy in the physical realm what makes science think they would be able to observe spiritual energy...
Spaghetti monsters? huh...
First you dumb down nature and humanity then you dumb down God...
RexRed wrote:jin_kazama wrote:RexRed wrote:How can science be practical for every day life when answers are so far away from the current "wall"? We need to guess in order to test the unknown...
yes but at least you can test things .... unlike creationism rhetoric
God can be tested...
Oh and how exactly might do so? Oh and don't give me a bunch of bull about testing his patience or anything like that. Living life is proof that there is no god because of all the completely random and horrible things that happen on a daily basis, like my best friend losing his father unexpectadley at the age of 42... and if you say everything that happens is party of "god's greater plan" then your god is a sick and wicked being.
RexRed wrote: That does not mean that science cannot measure the effects of spirituality but they cannot get at the essence of what it is exactly...
You say that science can not get at the essence of what spirituality is... do you imply that some one else can? Anyway do you believe that there is a spiritual realm where there are devils and angels.... but I'd think if you did believe in this you could not limit it to just angels and devils...
Like an onion, it stinks and makes one cry uncontrollably. It also gives one bad breath.
RexRed wrote: That does not mean that science cannot measure the effects of spirituality but they cannot get at the essence of what it is exactly...
They can only see the manifestation of energy in the form of change but they cannot observe the essence of this energy.
2 recent studies, a 2005
Duke University continuation of an earlier study conducted by the same team, and a larger study concluded this year, conducted by Harvard Univerity's
Mind/Body Institute, reached similar conclusions and reinforced the findings of earlier studies; prayer has no statistically significant effect on healing.
