Is U.S. Becoming Hostile to Science?

hehe ok I'm sorry that's fair enough I was getting a bit heated

I mean extremist religious people the people who won't accept science at all

lol Beclamide,

Don't get heated hun!!!! It's just a lil discussion. Remember that everyone has opinions and beliefs and I respect yours...truly I do. Even those who worship Satan. They have their reason for doing so and I must respect that as well. We can all learn much from one another if we only listen and take time to try to understand others.

I'm going trick or treating now see you guys later ...

Satan does not exist.

~Ulrika~

What sort of evidence can we look for that will prove or disprove creationism? (I'm using the term creationism this loosely, if you want to disclose more about your version feel free). This will establish creationism as a testable hypothesis.

What evidence is there to support creationism?



This is a bit of psychology with possible causes of resistance, but it doesn't address the issue: Creationism is not science.



Not all arguments revovle around religion. Some creationism theories involve hyperadvanced alien lifeforms coming to earth to "plant" life here. I have not seen evidence of that either.



All theories of the origin of life operate under the assumption that life exists. So, stating that life is evidence supports all theories of the origin of life.



I've looked at many potential explantions, including religious ones. I've held numerous "what if" discussions with friends discussing god, life, the universe and everything. All have their place, but we are talking here about teaching creationism as science when: Creationism is not science.



You've switched gears here and are now discussing the 'Big Bang' theory. (I think)
When you say "proven" do you mean "indisputeabley true" or do you mean "supported by a large body of evidence with no known contratictions"?



What evolutionist told you that? Evolution theories are constantly being criticized, tested and refined. You're just making things up now.

The above is perhaps the most ignorant thing I've heard anyone say in a very long time.

No one ever accused Kevn of being smart.

~Ulrika~

Yeah, but you just know there's more to come...

If only we had asked Jake first.

I like to think that most Christians would agree with what you say. Its only those who wish to impose their religion on others by pretending it is science that causes the heated debates.

and certainly when it gets political aid *nods*

This is vauge, do you mean that you belive that creatures evolve from geneation to generation?



This is a problem with the way science is taught in primary education. Regurgitate facts to pass the test. If something isn't a fact tell them it is so that you can test them on it. I don't like this either. Primary education should give students a survey of scientific theories as well as teach critical thinking. The problem is that is really hard to test critical thinking. Add to this the problem that the students need to pass standardized tests or it reflects badly on the teacher and school and the teachers have to 'teach to the test'.



A body of evidence exists that suggests abiogenesis may be possible, but nothing refuting it has been demonstrated yet. However, evidience continues to be collected.



Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is proposed as the mechanism that explains evolution. Scientific experiments have shown that this mechanism does explain the propatation or enhancement of a trait. For example, selective breeding can, in a short number of generations produce dogs or cats with a wide variety of physical (and tempermental etc) characteristics. Processes that occur natrually which aid or impede reproduction of an individual determine which traits are "naturally selected".




Is there a flaw in this?



The need for food and the need to evade predators are the two that pop into mind. There could be others. Flight evolved independently at least 4 different times. (insects, pterrasaurs(sorry, probably butchered that name), birds, bats).



To survive better and pass on their genetic material to future generations.



Because there is no pressure for them to be stronger.



For what?



The basic design of the termite is efficient at what it does and allows the successful reproduction of the species. That said, they do continue to evolve, which is why there are a lot more species of termites than there are of humans.



Do you know how fossils are made? Its a very rare event. In addition it usually only preserves the bones. (except in the case of amber) What does exists in the fossil record supports the theory of evolution.

Evolution is a theory constructed using the avialable evidence. If you require a nice neat solution wrapped in a bow and handed to you then you will never be satisfied. That is the allure of creationism, it offers a complete solution, but presents no evidence to back it up.

"Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion."

Peck, M. Scott [psychiatrist and Medical Director of New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic, Connecticut, USA], "The Road Less Travelled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth," [1978], Arrow: London, 1990, p.238.

That may be true for you, but that does not stop some people from worshiping him...as with God, Allah, Buddah, and even Zeus for that matter.
I think what you meant to say is that you do not believe that Satan exists...and I respect your beliefs. lol

That's not a particularly deep thought, Kevn. Read Thomas Kuhn. Back in 1962, his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions demonstrated the uses of dogmatism and generationalism in furthering paradigmatic evolution. Taken in context, that's the point that Peck - in his rather Dr. Phil, New Age, sit-me-under-a-crystal-and-watch-me-pray way - was trying to make. Except that whereas Kuhn claimed that science, like any other human intellectual endeavor was subject to functional behavioralism and the winds of ideology - Peck decided to ignore everything but religion and then claim a special comparison.

Bad, intellectually-dishonest thinking.

There is no evidence that a deity named "Satan" exists in any way whatsoever. Until there is evidence otherwise, Satan does not exist any more than an invisible dragon in my garage exists.

~Ulrika~

LL should pay you to post in this forums with us.

~Ulrika~

I stuttered on the submit key and made the same post twice. Since I have this extra post, I thought I'd say Happy Halloween!

~Ulrika~

Seth,

Kuhn claimed that science, like any other human intellectual endeavor was subject to functional behavioralism and the winds of ideology, Peck compared the rigor with which adherants will defend a dogma to a Christian who is excited by the prospects of eternal life with God.

The fact Peck uses the word religion might have mislead you. In this sense, he is using the following defintion of the word religion:

Peck's use of the word RELIGION: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

With that in mind, perhaps these two authors agree.

Satan, as a mythological figure, didn't even exist until the Christians needed him there (there is a king called Lucifer in the Bible, but no devil creation story-- all that is from Paradise lost and apocryphal crap ((as opposed to the standard crap)) ). So I guess you could say that even within Christianity, Satan doesn't really exist except as a scarecrow.

I know I'm splitting unicorn hairs.

Btw, when you see your mother this weekend, be sure and tell her Ave Satanas. Happy Halloween! Boogity-Boogity (that's the closest I come to knowing Enochian)!

Thankyou... This is what a LOT of people on these forums need to wake up and learn. Science is one line of beliefs to hold, but a well balanced scientist recognises there are other beliefs and does not set out to trash them out of hand or insult those who hold them.

Translated: To all you jerks who want to label people 'creationists' or whatever, then say we are to blame for all the ills in the world, stick to what you believe and DO NOT persecute anyoone else for what they believe in. If your precious scientists can exercise balance and tolerance, maybe you should LEARN what they obviously have learnt.

I believe that people who disagree with Chip Midnight (See how easily I eschew immodesty by having a sort of designated driver, truthwise?) are probably drooling, scrofulous idiots.

I suppose I could have second thoughts about that ... I mean, perhaps actual contrary evidence could sway me ... but, no! By Cthulhu, I'm sticking to what I believe!

Yar. Harrr.

Scrofulous, yes.

Definitely scrofulous.

Awwww... someone's a tad upset it sounds like.

I tell you what, Jsecure - you get 'your' people to quit persecuting me and trying to dictate the way I live and whom I live it with and I'll work on these damned fussy liberals lashing out at those religious folk.

Deal?

Absolutely fascinating! Thank you for sharing this. LL should be paying you to post in these forums too.

~Ulrika~

Satan in the form of a serpent deceived Eve. I guess that would mean the idea of satan goes way back.

Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness.

Lucifer means keeper of the light, he was a beautiful angel before falling from grace.

Read the Bible if you would like to know what the Bible actually says.

No one in this thread is persecuting you or dictating how you should live.