You assume that fundamentalism has something to do with real religion as if alchemy were science. The purpose of religion is to discover the laws of nature as they apply to the human condition regarding 'man's fall from grace' as one way to put it.
You assume that fundamentalism has something to do with real religion as if alchemy were science. The purpose of religion is to discover the laws of nature as they apply to the human condition regarding 'man's fall from grace' as one way to put it.
There is no separation of evolution into micro- and macro-... those terms are the invention of the religious right who want to give scientific backing to their religious philosophy.Originally posted by: GeNome
Actually, they do believe in microevolution. You can't not believe in it, after it's been documented and observed so thoroughly. What they don't believe in is macroevolution. Which, in all fairness, hasn't been proved yet. This is coming from an Athiest who took a Christian biology course.
Natural selection and evolution are facts... proven by biological, genetic, and historical evidence. Anyone who says otherwise is either stupid, in denial, or is purposefully twisting the facts. You choose which of the three groups you want to join.
I've assumed nothing about fundamentalism.
Religion doesn't aim to discover anything--it's already been written and followers look to their leaders to tell them what is there.
Originally posted by: Meuge
There is no separation of evolution into micro- and macro-... those terms are the invention of the religious right who want to give scientific backing to their religious philosophy.Originally posted by: GeNome
Actually, they do believe in microevolution. You can't not believe in it, after it's been documented and observed so thoroughly. What they don't believe in is macroevolution. Which, in all fairness, hasn't been proved yet. This is coming from an Athiest who took a Christian biology course.
Natural selection and evolution are facts... proven by biological, genetic, and historical evidence. Anyone who says otherwise is either stupid, in denial, or is purposefully twisting the facts. You choose which of the three groups you want to join.
Whoa there. I didn't say I agreed with them. And for the record, I most definitely do not. It's just as confusing to me why they try to separate it, since there is obviously so much supporting evidence for evolution. However, I do try to look at things from other people's shoes when I can, which is what I was doing here. What I stated about micro/macro was pretty much a direct quote from the book we used (although maybe a little watered-down.
)Originally posted by: GeNome
Whoa there. I didn't say I agreed with them. And for the record, I most definitely do not. It's just as confusing to me why they try to separate it, since there is obviously so much supporting evidence for evolution. However, I do try to look at things from other people's shoes when I can, which is what I was doing here. What I stated about micro/macro was pretty much a direct quote from the book we used (although maybe a little watered-down.
I see. Sorry I didn't realize it.
The reason they separate it is because they cannot dispute it... so they picked a category that is most directly observable, and decided to carry it aside, in order to leave the rest of the theory with less evidence. It seems to work for them, since the majority of people as so stupid and obsessed with size, that to them it seems that if evidence is on a microscopic scale, then it's insignificant. In addition, they simply don't realize that very little separates them from organisms that they cannot even see... that all the same laws that apply to bacteria, yeast, amoebas, plants, worms, flies, fish, birds, mice, dogs, pigs, and monkeys... apply to humans as well.
This is your religion. I told you differently but you cannot hear. You are a religious fanatic who has an absurd belief that you know what religion is. Your aim is to prevent yourself from discovering anything because you are stuffed full of the opinion you already know. You describe yourself when you speak of religion. Yours is a religious faith, all be it, a religion full of doctrine and no formal book.
"Too many camel bones and people forget what a real camel looks like." A saying
Anyone having a belief of any kind is religious? You need to distinguish between justified belief and belief based on fear of repression, brainwashing, or indoctrination.
Oh no! More ammo for the "Christianity is under attack" nutjobs! Oh brother . . . the martyrs will really start crawling out of the woodwork now. And then there's the new book deal for Fox's John Gibson.
God, please think. Anybody having a belief has it on faith. Religious and scientific belief can rest on lunacy or testable experience. How do you propose to distinguish between different faiths when you have never even examined your faith that YOU have the capacity to do this. You are a believer that you know right from wrong faith and I am a believer in the fact that I know nothing at all. And sometimes I'm not even sure of that. In other words you talk in generalities as if you were outside the things you describe instead of subject to the rules you claim apply to others. You are a believer and as such a kind of fanatic. You make all kinds of profoundly unscientific claims about religion about which you know nothing. Religion is the science of human development and you are not a apart of that science. How the hell would you know what is going on with real religion? You know only camel bones.
Originally posted by: dahunan
Very profound words... I might just copy it and drop leaflets out in front of the several churches I am surrounded by.. At least they keep the grass green for my dog
Too bad most people miss the point in the scramble to subjugate others.
You don't understand the concept of justification or the idea that we have to have epistemic access to the content of a belief in order to have knowledge. A religious belief (e.g. that God created man) is not verifiable and it is not falsifiable because we don't have epistemic access to anything relevant but the Bible, so such a belief is only as credible as the belief that what the Bible says is true (such a belief requires its own justification). A scientific belief, while relevant to some theory or other, is falsifiable. We can run experiments such that the resultant belief is justified.
I don't know why noone has brought this up - there ARE NO "BELIEFS" in science. There are hypotheses and theories. Belief is the absence of critical thinking. In science, the accepted theory is only accepted in lieu of the lack of conflicting evidence. It simply doesn't fit the definition of belief.
belief
A noun
1
a vague idea in which some confidence is placed
belief
A noun
1
a vague idea in which some confidence is placed
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
Scientists do not falsify data for prestige. Some people do, but they are not considered scientists by the rest of the community. If found out, they are stripped of their position and all credibility.
Sure, scientists cling to personal theories. However, once proven wrong, they usually recant. There are many papers which have been retracted over the years because of new information, or discovered mistakes.
Biased by research dollars by those seeking certain results? I can see if a company wants a scientist to invent something, then they're paying for a certain result, but projects that look for answers to fundamental questions are funded (inter)nationally.
Do you really believe that?
I think the opposite of critical thinking is irrational thinking.
I should say that you believe the scientific method is a powerful tool for understanding how things work. I certainly do. I am convinced by the profound insights it produces and the elegance of such solutions. I believe that where that elegance appears there is meaning. I believe that if I want to discover something about the natural world I'm going to hypothesize and test.
Similarly I believe that if I want insight into myself where unconscious motivations are blocking my vision I need to see somebody who has worked through that blindness or is blind in some unrelated way. I may have to take advise I loath to do to meet who I really am. I may have to follow a tested spiritual path known by knowers to lead to the place I can't see, just as I may have to go to school to learn how to conduct experiments and acquire the data to interpret them.
That's not the traditional definition of what a belief is in theory of knowledge (epistemology).
A belief is a propositional attitude. In other words, if one believes that p, then one thinks that p is true. A proposition is a set (or class) of possible worlds. 'Vague' and 'idea' are far too weak to be used to define anything.
Simplistically, a hypothesis is a modal conditional. Under conditions x, y will (or would) occur. This itself is a complex proposition. One can believe that <under conditions x, y will occur>. In fact, one should believe it if he also believes that the conditions of the experiment have been controlled properly.
Yes, science is self correcting at its best. I am not anti-science here, just pointing out that scientists are human and pron to the same vanity and frailties as any churchman. I am asking people for self examination and a mental quality that doesn't cling. To defend science against religion is absurd and reveals hidden motivations. The contempt scientists have for the religion of fools also blinds them to a deeper reality and understanding of what religion really is. Man is asleep and real religion is about awakening. As to this truth the scientist is as far behind as the primitive is to the scientist. Man is motivated to be asleep and does not want to awaken. The price of awakening is everything you believe. The tea cup of truth can't be filled unless the cup is empty.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,519
- 595
- 126
No one has actually witnessed a monkey turning into a man.
Evidence suggests that it happened, but the observation is not there.
So you believe it happened based on the evidence. Just like a jury believes someone is guilty of a crime based on the evidence. No one on the jury saw the crime take place.
Imagine if sometime an alien came down and said HAHAHA scientists...we PLANTED evidence for you to find just to fool you!!
Evidence suggests that it happened, but the observation is not there.
So you believe it happened based on the evidence. Just like a jury believes someone is guilty of a crime based on the evidence. No one on the jury saw the crime take place.
Imagine if sometime an alien came down and said HAHAHA scientists...we PLANTED evidence for you to find just to fool you!!
There's alot of empirical facts that we haven't witnessed first-hand but are justified in believing. That quarks exist, for example; or that a giant meteorite hit Arizona--there is a giant crater there. We can't be absolutely certain (there are few things that we can be so certain about), but the evidence is far more compelling than any supposed evidence that the Earth was created in 7 days, for example.
No, but we CAN see first hand that evolutionary processes transpiring in viruses, bacteria, fruit flies, etc - all of whom have shorter life spans. We can see the results of cross-breeding, mutations, adaptation and selection in these species and many others - just because we live too briefly to see it in longer lived species doesn't mean it suddenly doesn't work when the species lifespan grows...it just means that we lack the longitudinal observational ability to see thousands of years in person.
What part of that don't you understand?
Future Shock
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,519
- 595
- 126
True...
But since you didn't see the meteorite hit you BELIEVE it hit based on what you were told or the evidence you have gathered. Of course someone could have just dug a big hole.
Earth was created in six days, on the seventh, God rested. According to Genesis, God didn't create the sun and the moon until the third day...so that tells me that Gods days and our days are probably not quite the same.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter