Abortion Ban Rejected

[daquixers_is_back]

I was wondering why the "creationist alert" alarm was going off on my drive home.  Evolution is science.  Science is taught in school.  Creationism is religion.  Religion is taught somewhere other than school, unless that school is private.  Seems pretty damn simple to me.

839308[/snapback]

 

Evolution is a THEORY of science. Its not fact. I hate to break it to you, but their are scientific facts that seem to point toward intelligent design. I cant remember their names but there were scientists who were evolutionists and then became creationists after finding a ton of info pointing towards it.

[Bungee Jumper]

I hate to break it to you, but their are scientific facts that seem to point toward intelligent design.

840474[/snapback]

 

Uhhh...no, there isn't.

 

Intelligent design isn't science. By definition. It's not falsifiable. I don't care if people believe in it or not...just don't pretend it's even remotely scientific.

[/dev/null]

Evolution is a THEORY of science.

840474[/snapback]

 

So is gravity

[daquixers_is_back]

Uhhh...no, there isn't. 

 

Intelligent design isn't science.  By definition.  It's not falsifiable.  I don't care if people believe in it or not...just don't pretend it's even remotely scientific.

840476[/snapback]

 

Ok so if Science is something that must be PROVED to be true (not just not falsifiable) then Evolution is not science either ... because Evolution can not be proved.

 

What I MEANT by my comment is that their is evidence out their that hint towards intelligent design .. it doesnt mean it proves creatonism. Just that their is some small evidence. Such as the universe in general. If the earth was ever so closer or ever so further away (from the sun) and we wouldnt be able to live. Thats a possible *hint* towards creatonism. People who say it is not are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. The Big Bang ... seems a little funny to me. If you want to believe in evolution then fine but dont try to say that a large bang caused millions of stars is not somewhat ridiculous. Anyway, anyway ... if you want to just read "interesting" (notice how I did not say TRUTH) facts look at this website http://www.icr.org/

 

So is gravity

840477[/snapback]

 

Jump off of a building and tell me how that goes.

 

What I really wonder is that *IF* (I believe) God is real and you guys always rejected him .. well .. I pray for you.

[Bungee Jumper]

Ok so if Science is something that must be PROVED to be true (not just not falsifiable) then Evolution is not science either ... because Evolution can not be proved.

 

All that demonstrates is that you don't have a clue what "science" actually is. Or a "theory".

 

What I MEANT by my comment is that their is evidence out their that hint towards intelligent design .. it doesnt mean it proves creatonism. Just that their is some small evidence. Such as the universe in general.

 

Except that "intelligent design" proponents usually rationalize it backwards: science says "Looking at the available evidence, here is a theory that best explains its meaning." Intelligent design says "Looking at the theory, here is how the available evidence can be explained." The intelligent design argument is nothing more than using the hypothesis to prove itself...and as such is not falsifiable, and as such is not science.

 

Evolution, on the other hand, is hard, rigorous science. Read Darwin. Darwin didn't decide evolution was a valid theory - he developed it from evidence he collected contrary to his devout belief in God and personal belief in creationism. He did good science: he looked at the evidence, looked at the prevailing theory, said "this theory doesn't explain the evidence", and came up with a better one.

 

If the earth was ever so closer or ever so further away (from the sun) and we wouldnt be able to live. Thats a possible *hint* towards creatonism.

 

Is a fallacy. Backwards reasoning again. "If the earth wasn't livable, we wouldn't be here. Therefore, since we're here, the earth must have been made livable for us." That doesn't "hint" at anything - you're using your hypothesis of determinism to prove your hypothesis of determinism. That's even less science that creationism usually is.

 

The Big Bang ... seems a little funny to me. If you want to believe in evolution then fine but dont try to say that a large bang caused millions of stars is not somewhat ridiculous.

 

Obviously because you don't understand The Big Bang. A "large bang" didn't "cause millions of stars". It's actually far more complex than that.

 

I'd recommend not pursuing that line of discussion, frankly. You do, and I promise I'll own you.

 

Anyway, anyway ... if you want to just read "interesting" (notice how I did not say TRUTH) facts look at this website http://www.icr.org/

 

I've read it before, thanks. It's still crap.

 

What I really wonder is that *IF* (I believe) God is real and you guys always rejected him .. well .. I pray for you.

840482[/snapback]

 

I dont' reject God. I talk with him on a daily basis, in fact. He asked me to tell you that he doesn't need people like you to pimp for him.

[daquixers_is_back]

All that demonstrates is that you don't have a clue what "science" actually is.  Or a "theory". 

Except that "intelligent design" proponents usually rationalize it backwards: science says "Looking at the available evidence, here is a theory that best explains its meaning."  Intelligent design says "Looking at the theory, here is how the available evidence can be explained."  The intelligent design argument is nothing more than using the hypothesis to prove itself...and as such is not falsifiable, and as such is not science. 

 

Already knew you would say that

 

Evolution, on the other hand, is hard, rigorous science.  Read Darwin.  Darwin didn't decide evolution was a valid theory - he developed it from evidence he collected contrary to his devout belief in God and personal belief in creationism.  He did good science: he looked at the evidence, looked at the prevailing theory, said "this theory doesn't explain the evidence", and came up with a better one.

 

And many believe that Darwin denounced his theories on his death bed ... oh well

 

Is a fallacy.  Backwards reasoning again.  "If the earth wasn't livable, we wouldn't be here.  Therefore, since we're here, the earth must have been made livable for us."  That doesn't "hint" at anything - you're using your hypothesis of determinism to prove your hypothesis of determinism.  That's even less science that creationism usually is.

Obviously because you don't understand The Big Bang.  A "large bang" didn't "cause millions of stars".  It's actually far more complex than that.

 

I'd recommend not pursuing that line of discussion, frankly.  You do, and I promise I'll own you. 

 

Yes I know, I have watched the science channel too

 

I've read it before, thanks.  It's still crap.

I dont' reject God.  I talk with him on a daily basis, in fact.  He asked me to tell you that he doesn't need people like you to pimp for him.

840606[/snapback]

 

mmm oookay then

[Bungee Jumper]

Already knew you would say that

 

Doubt it. Can't see how you'd know I'd explain your reasoning is fallacious, and still hold the fallacy.

 

And many believe that Darwin denounced his theories on his death bed ... oh well

 

"Belief" has nothing to do with it. Did he or didn't he?

 

Yes I know, I have watched the science channel too 

 

You're such a retard.

[daquixers_is_back]

Doubt it.  Can't see how you'd know I'd explain your reasoning is fallacious, and still hold the fallacy.

 

I dont believe it was a fallacy ... its all in how you look at it. I have heard your arguement from a ton of people, countless times ... such as Im sure you have heard mine, many times before now.

 

You're such a retard.

841161[/snapback]

 

I guess you didnt get the joke.

[Bungee Jumper]

I dont believe it was a fallacy ...

 

Like I said...you obviously don't have a clue what "science" or a "theory" is.

 

Quite honestly...I don't particularly care what you "believe", any more than you care what I "believe". My only particular bone of contention in the whole evolution vs. creation/intelligent design debate is the people who are trying to redefine "science" to include fundamentally unscientific beliefs. Creationism and intelligent design are not and can never be science in that their fundamental basis is unknowable, untestable, and inexplicable. To put it another way: "science" as a discipline is a body of rational thought intended to describe and explain the universe. Creation and/or intelligent design ultimately require something extra-universal to explain things. By definition, nothing requiring something outside the empirical body of observable evidence constituting the universe can be scientific.

 

Which does not speak to right vs. wrong...just to "scientific" vs. "non-scientific". You want to believe creationism, fine by me...just don't try to sell me on it being science. In return, I won't try to sell you on evolution being religious.

 

I guess you didnt get the joke. 

843017[/snapback]

 

No, I got it. You're still an idiot.

[daquixers_is_back]

Like I said...you obviously don't have a clue what "science" or a "theory" is.

 

Quite honestly...I don't particularly care what you "believe", any more than you care what I "believe".  My only particular bone of contention in the whole evolution vs. creation/intelligent design debate is the people who are trying to redefine "science" to include fundamentally unscientific beliefs.  Creationism and intelligent design are not and can never be science in that their fundamental basis is unknowable, untestable, and inexplicable.  To put it another way: "science" as a discipline is a body of rational thought intended to describe and explain the universe.  Creation and/or intelligent design ultimately require something extra-universal to explain things.  By definition, nothing requiring something outside the empirical body of observable evidence constituting the universe can be scientific.

 

Which does not speak to right vs. wrong...just to "scientific" vs. "non-scientific".  You want to believe creationism, fine by me...just don't try to sell me on it being science.  In return, I won't try to sell you on evolution being religious.

 

Or we just have a different definition of science? hmm ...

 

No, I got it.  You're still an idiot.

843265[/snapback]

 

[Bungee Jumper]

Or we just have a different definition of science? hmm ...

 

Yeah, there's the right one, and there's yours.

 

There's no "different definition of science". There's science. And then there's stuff that's not science. And there's nothing wrong with stuff that's not science. It's okay for stuff to not be science. It is NOT, however, okay for stuff that is not science to pretend to BE science.

[Chilly]

Yeah, there's the right one, and there's yours.

 

There's no "different definition of science".  There's science.  And then there's stuff that's not science.  And there's nothing wrong with stuff that's not science.  It's okay for stuff to not be science.  It is NOT, however, okay for stuff that is not science to pretend to BE science.

843723[/snapback]

 

You mean science isn't relative? It isn't what each one of us believes it to be?

 

You mean..... its not religion?

[daquixers_is_back]

Yeah, there's the right one, and there's yours.

 

There's no "different definition of science".  There's science.  And then there's stuff that's not science.  And there's nothing wrong with stuff that's not science.  It's okay for stuff to not be science.  It is NOT, however, okay for stuff that is not science to pretend to BE science.

843723[/snapback]

 

OK. Fair enough. Dictionaries definition of science

 

 

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

 

Ok. So Evolution can not be included with the term SCIENCE because Evolution is still a theory? Correct? (theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena) ... its not FACT. There may be facts that lead to believe you evolution is true ... just the same as a Christian can turn it around to say otherwise.

 

Im just really trying to understand where your coming from.

[Chilly]

Yes, wikipedia is not a credible source. At the same time, it is a decent tool to provide fundamental understanding of different concepts.

 

I would therefore suggest that you read:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

[Bungee Jumper]

OK. Fair enough. Dictionaries definition of science

Ok. So Evolution can not be included with the term SCIENCE because Evolution is still a theory? Correct? (theory: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena) ... its not FACT. There may be facts that lead to believe you evolution is true ... just the same as a Christian can turn it around to say otherwise.

844918[/snapback]

 

No, because that's not a definition of science either. Now you're just trying to ensure that evolution and creation have equal footing...when they never will, because one's science, and one's religion.

 

Science, contrary to popular belief, does not deal in "fact". Science is the formulation of rules about how natural systems behave based on observation, empirical evidence, and testing (in the broadest sense of the word, i.e. not limited to active laboratory investigation). Generally, scientific "fact" is just a really, really accurate theory - Newtonian gravitation, for example, was a very accurate description of gravity...until they observed phenomena it couldn't explain, empirically measured said phenomena, came up with a viable alternate theory, and tested said theory against observable phenomena and empirical evidence. Hence, General Relativity.

 

Similarly, evolutionary theory has developed. Darwin (among many, MANY others over the past century and a half) observed phenomena science couldn't readily explain, empirically measured it, and came up with a viable theory to explain it, which was then tested against other observable phenomena and empirical measurement.

 

And that is science.

 

Creation (or better, intelligent design, which unlike creation is actually claimed to be science), on the other hand, fails one simple critera for a scientific theory: it's not testable. How do you make an empirical measure of observable pheonmena that demonstrates development is dictated by ex cathedra decision making? The key words there being "empirical measure" - I've heard plenty of arguments akin to "The eye is such an amazing and complex organ, it had to have been designed by a higher power." That's not empirical measurement. (And frankly, empirical measures usually indicate just the opposite - if an intelligent designer "designed" the human eye, for example, he must have been drunk off his ass when he did. Reaction to light levels is needlessly slow, color sensitivity is needlessly concentrated, and the attachment of the retina to the optic nerve is a just plain silly structure, causing as it does a blind spot and vulnerability to trauma.)

 

And the usual answer to that is something like "Well, the designer must have had a reason, who are we to question it?" And thus, the "scientific" theory boils down always to the hypothesis that isn't based on observable phenomena and isn't empirically measurable. Hence...not science.

[daquixers_is_back]

No, because that's not a definition of science either.  Now you're just trying to ensure that evolution and creation have equal footing...when they never will, because one's science, and one's religion.

 

Science, contrary to popular belief, does not deal in "fact".  Science is the formulation of rules about how natural systems behave based on observation, empirical evidence, and testing (in the broadest sense of the word, i.e. not limited to active laboratory investigation).  Generally, scientific "fact" is just a really, really accurate theory - Newtonian gravitation, for example, was a very accurate description of gravity...until they observed phenomena it couldn't explain, empirically measured said phenomena, came up with a viable alternate theory, and tested said theory against observable phenomena and empirical evidence.  Hence, General Relativity. 

 

Similarly, evolutionary theory has developed.  Darwin (among many, MANY others over the past century and a half) observed phenomena science couldn't readily explain, empirically measured it, and came up with a viable theory to explain it, which was then tested against other observable phenomena and empirical measurement.

 

And that is science. 

 

Creation (or better, intelligent design, which unlike creation is actually claimed to be science), on the other hand, fails one simple critera for a scientific theory: it's not testable.  How do you make an empirical measure of observable pheonmena that demonstrates development is dictated by ex cathedra decision making?  The key words there being "empirical measure" - I've heard plenty of arguments akin to "The eye is such an amazing and complex organ, it had to have been designed by a higher power."  That's not empirical measurement.  (And frankly, empirical measures usually indicate just the opposite - if an intelligent designer "designed" the human eye, for example, he must have been drunk off his ass when he did.  Reaction to light levels is needlessly slow, color sensitivity is needlessly concentrated, and the attachment of the retina to the optic nerve is a just plain silly structure, causing as it does a blind spot and vulnerability to trauma.)

 

And the usual answer to that is something like "Well, the designer must have had a reason, who are we to question it?"  And thus, the "scientific" theory boils down always to the hypothesis that isn't based on observable phenomena and isn't empirically measurable.  Hence...not science.

844972[/snapback]

 

Well hey atleast I understand your stance now ... although I suggest you get the dictionary to change its entry to agree with your views.

[Bungee Jumper]

Well hey atleast I understand your stance now ... although I suggest you get the dictionary to change its entry to agree with your views.

844982[/snapback]

 

"My views" are the dictionary definition, and how science (good science, at least) is practiced. I suggest you get a new dictionary.

[daquixers_is_back]

"My views" are the dictionary definition, and how science (good science, at least) is practiced.  I suggest you get a new dictionary.

845011[/snapback]

 

Websters and Unabridged dictionary ... what do you use?

[Bungee Jumper]

Websters and Unabridged dictionary ... what do you use?

845101[/snapback]

 

Random House, American Heritage, Merriam-Webster (abridged and unabridged), Oxford English Dictionary.

 

And it's not "Webster and Unabridged". It's "Webster's Unabridged..." "Unabridged" means "complete" or "not truncated". And I highly doubt your "definition" of science is in there.

[UConn James]

BJ/CTM/DCT, you may as well go outside, find the nearest stone and conduct this same argument. You would fare better.

 

Mr. Quixote can't pass up a windmill when sees one. I'm waiting with baited breath for him to get banned for his Nate Clements crusading.