Believe in science & ethics
-
"Solid" evidence, perhaps? And I take offence in you calling christians deluded. Hoping to have a civil discussion here, not name calling.Originally posted by pretzel:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=073106-1
Evolution has already been proven to be a fact. The argument should never have existed if not for some deluded christians. The first link above is from the University of California, Berkeley. What more do you want?
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm -
Who wrote all these? Is it a few christians?Originally posted by Kachui:"Solid" evidence, perhaps? And I take offence in you calling christians deluded. Hoping to have a civil discussion here, not name calling.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm -
Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolutionary change is observed in nature. (crit) Natural selection serves as a means of conservation, not one of creation. It explains survival of a species, not arrival of a species. Here's an illustration: You work in a car factory. Your job is quality control - make sure the cars work like they are supposed to. You kick the tires and slam the doors, drive the cars around, etc. You identify and remove defects (an arbitrary selection with the same final result as natural selection). How long would it take for this selection process to turn one of those cars into an airplane naturally over time? It won't happen.
This is the shiit. -
I kicked a dog and it jumped up, barked and tried to bite me. But when I kicked a car, nothing happened. Why is there such a difference? No siree, I do not know
If this is the kind of evidence christians use to debunk evolution, goodluck to the delusional -
Point taken. Believing in an intelligent designer is the realm of faith. But I was just trying to point out that it is possible for a scientist to be a believer in a divine creator.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:"Intelligent Design" is a belief. It does not rise up to the standards required by the Scientific Method.
If a microbiologist does not come up with evidence and proof that there is an intelligent designer, it falls into the realm of beliefs.
If you say, there must be an intelligent designer, then you must say who this intelligent designer is and show proof of his existence.
There are many scientific facts to support evolution, you can Google and see them for yourself.
And your point of needing to say who this intelligent designer is, what if I walk through the woods, and come across an ancient pyramid like structure, I would infer that it is built by an intelligent civilization, but I don't know who they are. So would it be possible for the microbiologist looking into the cell, and come to a decision that the cell couldn't have been caused by accidents, but by intelligent design? It is just that he does not know who or what this designer is. -
I agree with wat andrew had said. Paticularly about scientist accepting the facts and evidences and believe anything tat can be proven and make sense. And in the case of creation and evolution, it is inevitable tat intelligent design and evolution theory have to be compared.
If you believe evolution is wrong, u don't even need to refute the thousands over evidences tat support evolution. U just need to show 1, and only one evidence tat clearly show evolution is wrong. However religious committee have been searching for tat one evidence but to no avail. Living being changes over a long period of time is a fact.
If u want to prove creationism is right, then u have to show evidences tat show intelligent design is the way. Again u just need to show only 1 irrefutable evidence to prove it. Otherwise there is no reason to believe in something tat is potentially wrong.
And if u wanna show website supporting intelligent design, u should show the website from reputable scientific organisation. If u show the website from religious sources, then u just prove tat intelligent design is not scientific and only religious. And being religious, they can believe in things u will not commonly see in everyday life so much so tat non believers will classified it as fantasy.And your point of needing to say who this intelligent designer is, what if I walk through the woods, and come across an ancient pyramid like structure, I would infer that it is built by an intelligent civilization, but I don't know who they are. So would it be possible for the microbiologist looking into the cell, and come to a decision that the cell couldn't have been caused by accidents, but by intelligent design? It is just that he does not know who or what this designer is.
If i see a big piece of unknown thing in front of me, I can only conclude
1) There is tis big piece of unknown thing in front of me
Tat is it.
U should not conclude
2) tis must be something made by some intelligent being
3) there is an intelligent being
4) give stories and characteristics to tis intelligent being
because the fact can be
5) made by the randomness of tis galaxy
6) parallel universe
7) ancient civilisation
strange house made by some animal
9) newly discovered mineral or crystal
10) some living things
11) aliens or its structure
Looking at your example of the pyramid, the person can make studies to the architecture and its interior and study the history until it can give concrete evidence and sound conclusion. Then it will come up with the conclusion of ancient egypt and its civilisation. On the other hand if the person just say it is made by an intelligent being and then do not do any studies and just dumbly pray to tis structure, then they will always think there is an intelligent being tat made the structure and never know the real fact behind it. -
You can use the words "an intelligent civilization" because there are precedents for it. We might not know which "intelligent civilization" but we do know that because the Ancient Egyptians built pyramids it is likely that "an intelligent civilization" built the one that we stumbled across in the forest.Originally posted by Kachui:Point taken. Believing in an intelligent designer is the realm of faith. But I was just trying to point out that it is possible for a scientist to be a believer in a divine creator.
And your point of needing to say who this intelligent designer is, what if I walk through the woods, and come across an ancient pyramid like structure, I would infer that it is built by an intelligent civilization, but I don't know who they are. So would it be possible for the microbiologist looking into the cell, and come to a decision that the cell couldn't have been caused by accidents, but by intelligent design? It is just that he does not know who or what this designer is.
If we find on it unknown elements (metals) that are not found any where else on earth, we might conjecture that it was deposited there by aliens.
Because there are pyramids in the desert of Egypt, and there are no evidence of deposits by aliens, we say... that the better explanation is that "an intelligent civilization" built it and we don't know why there are unknown elements on it.
There is also a problem with your example. Evolution deals with living things and we all know that the DNA of living things change, mutate, and evolve.
There is no evidence that non living things (a pyramid) can simply pop up from nowhere.
So you are not comparing apples with apples when you compare a living cell with a pyramid.
ID deals with "eliminating" possibilities and then makes a leap of faith. That is not acceptable in science. They say: "it can't be this, it can't be that, it can't be evolution and so, it must be "an intelligent designer!"
When you eliminate the possibilities, then the scientist will say, "well in that case, we don't know!"
If you can prove that evolution is wrong, then the scientist will say, "OK evolution is wrong, we do not know". That is all. Scientist will not say, "OK Evolution is wrong, so it must be ID".
They might even say: "Let's examine the possibility that an intelligent designer created it and let's try to get the evidence and proof for that."
If they cannot, then they will say, "OK there is no evidence and proof of a designer, so let's forget it and review this when somebody comes up with the evidence and proof." -
BTW it is widely acknowledge that a Christian philosopher Descartes (the cart) started the revolution in scientific thought. Before him, people depended on beliefs. After him, people depended on proof and evidence.
-
Christians have faith in Jesus Christ, his miracles of raising the dead etc and his resurrection.
-
but science cannot tolerate faith because faith is blind. It can not distinguish between truth and lies.
-
There is a place for faith and beliefs. Unfortunately it leads to a delusional state of mind (unable to distinguish between truth and lies). It need not be.Originally posted by stupidissmart:but science cannot tolerate faith because faith is blind. It can not distinguish between truth and lies. -
what are the truths and lies that the Christian faith could not distinguish?Originally posted by stupidissmart:but science cannot tolerate faith because faith is blind. It can not distinguish between truth and lies. -
I think creationism, intelligent design and evolution falls into this category. I wonder why christians like to go to pro-christian websites to look for obviously christian biased information and lies on these subjects. If the Pope can use some common sense, why can't the rest of the christians? Either the Pope is lying, dumb or right.Originally posted by Daddy!!:what are the truths and lies that the Christian faith could not distinguish?
"This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” --- Pope Benedict XVI -
By the way, I see alot of christians questioning the supposed lack of evidence for evolution when the evidence are so numerous. Who are these christians? Is Kachui a scientist? Does he have enough credibility to say that the evidence for evolution is not "solid" enough?Originally posted by Kachui:"Solid" evidence, perhaps? And I take offence in you calling christians deluded. Hoping to have a civil discussion here, not name calling.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm
Just because he posted a link to a christian website, people are supposed to believe in that? Check out the evidence given there. Comparing a non-living thing with a living thing? That's plain ridiculous.
There's a reason why most scientists of all religions agree that evolution is a valid scientific theory aka fact, as can be seen by the many scientific communities' stand on the subject, and only a handful of christians (or christian scientists) believe in creationism
http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10(National Science Teachers' Association)
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf (Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries)
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf (American Association for the Advancement of Science) -
U accused me I'm psyeudo-intellect.It is easy to any how make accusation.Show the readers your reasons & evidence to say that.Originally posted by Kachui:I never call myself an intellectual. But from your writing, you seemed to think yourself as one.
You stated that majority of the people do not believe that God created the world? What is your point?
By the way, you have done a survey or something to come to that conclusion? And so what if the majority of the people do not believe that God created the world; does that mean what the majority believe in must be correct?
If is just my belief that the majortiy don't believe god created the world.One reason: the majority are not Chistians.
Why don't you convince us god created the world is scientific?It is more positive to do that then criticising theory of evolution. -
I was not labelling christain as piteous.I was trying to say those who believe strongly in Chrianity not to read my that criticism on the religion.Originally posted by Kachui:Hi Andrew, I am not trying to bring Evolution Vs Christianity debate into this thread. That was not my intention. The arguments between these two factions can be found all over the net, both giving sound arguments; I have my own beliefs and I respect others' beliefs. I am not agitated in anyway that there are people trying to debunk Christianity or all religions. My response was due to the pompous pseudo-intellectual who has not contributed anything to this thread and who seemed to be riding on your coat-tail, labelling Christians as "piteous" and arrogantly warned us that what he was about to write will shake our belief. I hate people who make pompous and arrogant claims without substance.
U certainly was offended by my that criticism on god created the world and so you accuse all kind of negative remark.
I think god created the world is unscientific.Your postitive reply should be it is believable because ..... But have you done that?Then u accused me as psyeudo-intellectual,...... Is this the right way to debate? -
We don't know anything about science.Only u know!! So don't debate with us.Originally posted by soul_rage:So what does he know about Science?
And what do you know about Science?
I see you contributing one-liners most of the time.
And will you step over a pile of burnt hell money? -
A master piece of argument!Someone would not accuse you as psyeudo-intelllectul.Originally posted by stupidissmart:I agree with wat andrew had said. Paticularly about scientist accepting the facts and evidences and believe anything tat can be proven and make sense. And in the case of creation and evolution, it is inevitable tat intelligent design and evolution theory have to be compared.
If you believe evolution is wrong, u don't even need to refute the thousands over evidences tat support evolution. U just need to show 1, and only one evidence tat clearly show evolution is wrong. However religious committee have been searching for tat one evidence but to no avail. Living being changes over a long period of time is a fact.
If u want to prove creationism is right, then u have to show evidences tat show intelligent design is the way. Again u just need to show only 1 irrefutable evidence to prove it. Otherwise there is no reason to believe in something tat is potentially wrong.
And if u wanna show website supporting intelligent design, u should show the website from reputable scientific organisation. If u show the website from religious sources, then u just prove tat intelligent design is not scientific and only religious. And being religious, they can believe in things u will not commonly see in everyday life so much so tat non believers will classified it as fantasy.
If i see a big piece of unknown thing in front of me, I can only conclude
1) There is tis big piece of unknown thing in front of me
Tat is it.
U should not conclude
2) tis must be something made by some intelligent being
3) there is an intelligent being
4) give stories and characteristics to tis intelligent being
because the fact can be
5) made by the randomness of tis galaxy
6) parallel universe
7) ancient civilisation strange house made by some animal
9) newly discovered mineral or crystal
10) some living things
11) aliens or its structure
Looking at your example of the pyramid, the person can make studies to the architecture and its interior and study the history until it can give concrete evidence and sound conclusion. Then it will come up with the conclusion of ancient egypt and its civilisation. On the other hand if the person just say it is made by an intelligent being and then do not do any studies and just dumbly pray to tis structure, then they will always think there is an intelligent being tat made the structure and never know the real fact behind it. -
what are the truths and lies that the Christian faith could not distinguish?
Personally, IMO there r many issues I think is unbelievable but tat is beside the point. The point is, faith is subjective and do not rely on factual evidences. U can see different people with different belief having faith in completely different things. Surely it is impossible for everybody to be correct since it is different. -
You don't dare answer the question on stepping on burnt hell money rite?Originally posted by PRP:We don't know anything about science.Only u know!! So don't debate with us.
You dare to open the umbrella at home during the 7th Month?
If you keep harping on how silly superstition is, then what are you doing?
Sometimes, being too hardcore on Science IS ALSO a superstition.
That's all I can say. Science causes too many of us to become skeptics, and become less receptive about things beyond Science.
That's something which many people like you or Andrew, who go on and on about Science, that do not understand. By insisting that everything else that cannot be explained by Science is superstition or rubbish, is itself a superstition. -
Hahaha...Originally posted by soul_rage:You don't dare answer the question on stepping on burnt hell money rite?
You dare to open the umbrella at home during the 7th Month?
If you keep harping on how silly superstition is, then what are you doing?
Stepped on hell notes...done.
Opened umbrella indoor during 7th month...done that too.
Broke a mirror....done too.
Walked under a ladder...did this too...
Stepped on books....did it too.
Camped near a graveyard in an overseas school trip.....done too.
I did these (perhaps childish) things during college years many years back to spite some classmates who kept harping abt "the limitations of science" and how "supernaturalism" cannot be explained after I told them that it is only the ignorant who subscribe to dark age beliefs such as these....
And you know what....
At the end of it all, I didn't become possessed, didn't meet up with spirits, didn't get 7 years of bad luck (it's been over 10 years since that experiment and I've graduated from uni with a stable job), and certainly after stepping on books I didn't become retarded like some superstitious old maids would believe.
So what does this tell you about the emptiness of such claims.
No. Science is about hardwork. It is about countless days in the lab, tiring weeks outfield observing nature, drafting and checking long reports and calculations, etc etc....It is about submitting yourself to critical peer reviews before your hypothesis can be accepted as theory. There is no easy way out in science....and that is its strength. Only those ignorant about the scientific process would say that science is "superstition".Originally posted by soul_rage:Sometimes, being too hardcore on Science IS ALSO a superstition.
That's all I can say. Science causes too many of us to become skeptics, and become less receptive about things beyond Science.
That's something which many people like you or Andrew, who go on and on about Science, that do not understand. By insisting that everything else that cannot be explained by Science is superstition or rubbish, is itself a superstition.
Whereas supernaturalism (like creationism, theosphism, animism, etc, etc) is about jumping to conclusions and applying simplistic answers in answering the hard questions about life, nature and the universe. Supernaturalism is the lazy way out.
The real "hardcore" people are the fanatics in cults, fundamentalist movements or mystical movements. -
Latest news....a blow struck against ignorant pseudoscience and supernaturalistic fundamentalism.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKL0417855220071004
Council of Europe firmly opposes creationism in school
STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - Europe's main human rights body voted on Thursday to urge schools across the continent to firmly oppose the teaching of creationist and "intelligent design" views in their science classes.
The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.
The text said European schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion." It said the "intelligent design" view defended by some United States conservatives was an updated version of creationism.
Creationism says God made the world in six days as depicted in the Bible. Intelligent design argues some life forms are too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin's theory and needed an unnamed higher intelligence to develop as they have.
Anne Brasseur, an Assembly member from Luxembourg who updated an earlier draft resolution, said the report showed how creationists -- most recently a shadowy Turkish Muslim writer Harun Yahya -- were trying to infiltrate European schools.
"The purpose of this report is to warn against the attempt to pass off a belief -- creationism -- as a science and to teach the theses of this belief in science classes," she said. "Its purpose is not to fight any belief."
The vote was due in June but was postponed because some members felt the original text amounted to an attack on religious belief. A few changes were made to spell out that it was not directed against religion.
The Council, based in the eastern French city of Strasbourg, oversees human rights standards in member states and enforces decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
The resolution, which passed 48 votes to 25 with 3 abstentions, is not binding on the Council's 47 member states but reflects widespread opposition among politicians to teaching creationism in science class.
Some conservatives in the United States, both religious and secular, have long opposed the teaching of evolution in public schools but U.S. courts have regularly barred them from teaching what they describe as religious views of creation.
Pressure to teach creationism is weaker in Europe, but has been mounting. An Assembly committee took up the issue because Harun Yahya has been sending his lavish Islamic creationist book "Atlas of Creation" to schools in several countries.
Supporters of intelligent design want it taught in science class alongside evolution. A U.S. court ruled this out in a landmark decision in 2005, dismissing it as 'neo-creationism'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
At least the leaders of Europe and wise to note the dangers of irrational fundamentalism dn take steps to safeguard their children against such nonsense.
The below extract taken from:
The dangers of creationism in education
Report
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mrs Anne BRASSEUR, Luxembourg, ALDE
1. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.
2. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.
3. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.
4. Creationists question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.
5. We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which, the better to impose religious dogma, are attacking the very core of the knowledge that we have patiently built up on nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.
6. There is a real risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science, and of the advent of an “all things are equal” attitude, which may seem appealing and tolerant but is actually disastrous.
7. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution but claims that this is the work of a superior intelligence. Though more subtle in its presentation, the doctrine of intelligent design is no less dangerous.
8. The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a not insignificant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.
9. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.
10. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.
11. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.
12. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.
13. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of the sciences in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.
14. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.
15. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.
16. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.
17. Investigation of the creationistsÂ’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the CouncilÂ’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late. -
Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:Hahaha...
Stepped on hell notes...done.
Opened umbrella indoor during 7th month...done that too.
Broke a mirror....done too.
Walked under a ladder...did this too...
Stepped on books....did it too.
Camped near a graveyard in an overseas school trip.....done too.
-
Let's put it this wayOriginally posted by Ibram Gaunt:No. Science is about hardwork. It is about countless days in the lab, tiring weeks outfield observing nature, drafting and checking long reports and calculations, etc etc....It is about submitting yourself to critical peer reviews before your hypothesis can be accepted as theory. There is no easy way out in science....and that is its strength. Only those ignorant about the scientific process would say that science is "superstition".
Whereas supernaturalism (like creationism, theosphism, animism, etc, etc) is about jumping to conclusions and applying simplistic answers in answering the hard questions about life, nature and the universe. Supernaturalism is the lazy way out.
The real "hardcore" people are the fanatics in cults, fundamentalist movements or mystical movements.
There was a kid who accidentally stepped on hell notes, and resulted in a strange problem with the leg not being able to straighten (straightening in causes intense pain), and for one entire year, going to doctors was useless, until the mother had to bring the kid to a medium before the leg was able to straighten. The doctors could not decipher what was the exact problem, and injections or drugs were all useless
You not encountering anything may not mean that others did not encounter some strange happenings.
I graduated from Science, and Physics, Chemistry, etc is not new to me. Its only after I studied in detail astronomy that there is a sense of how limited our Science is.
As again this was never a thing about Science being right or wrong. Its understanding that current Science can only explain a very small amount of things happening in this universe.
There are hardworking people who work day in day out in the labs, only for certain people here to abuse their work and use it to insult religion or beliefs or even belittle ethics
The best thing is, this person thinks he is right calling others stupid just because Science can prove a person is stupid. As I said, there are rogue scientists who insist on going their way ignoring the consequences, and this person is one such rogue. No ethics, and no respect for other people in this forum.