No, what I did was point out that he posted only ONE definition of scientific theory and there are others, but I ignored that fact and addressed through quotes what he wrote. I find it amazing that anyone will enter into a discussion such as this and then say when challenged to demonstrate why they believe something that is supposedly based on facts that don't bear up under scrutiny that "nobody cares that you don't think it's a valid theory". Guess what, nobody cares what you think either, for the most part. But since you entered the discussion if you have something to add other than smart assed comments (since Cliff told me that wasn't a banned word) then I'd be interested in hearing them.
So, again I ask any of you evolutionists that believe life began spontaneously and by chance to reconcile "A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts" with the statement that is over-riding in the theory that "Something, somehow, began life with amino acids". Come up with a plausible explanation of that something, somehow, and you'll start to have a valid theory, until then it's no better than the "fairy tales" you deride so eagerly.
I'm also still waiting for one example of one species evolving into another different species. No takers, huh? Gee it's estimated that there are at least 10 million species and possibly as many as 100 million species of animals in the world now, not to mention those that have become extinct, and we're cataloging 15,000 new ones a year. Where is that crossover?? Things that make you go HMMMMMMMM.
John Stricker
PS: as for my credentials, do I have a phd? No. I do have a BS in Agriculture/Crop Science Genetics. Now, what credentials do you have?
quote
Originally posted by Tugboat:
He posted the scientific defination of "theory". That you want to confuse that with other meanings of the word is just obfuscation.
Nobody cares that you don't think it's a valid theory - it works in the scientific world. Do you have the credentials to tell PHDs they're wrong?
I think the solution to the problem is obvious. I believe in total freedom to believe in whatever one wants to. However, I think that each person should be allowed to benefit from science only what befits their beliefs. A creationist should not be allowed access to modern medicine, vaccinations, or any other result of biological science that has any input whatsoever from Darwin's contributions.
Simple as that.
If one doesn't accept scientific rational thinking and understanding, one shouldn't have access to any of the benefits of that rational scientific thinking.
I happen to think most creationists/religionists are hypocrites in that they freely accept the benefits of science while at the same time decrying its underlying precepts and principles.
JazzMan
IP: Logged
10:32 PM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
I see. So only if it conforms to YOUR idea of rational thinking is it acceptable? Interesting take on things, and extremely petty and narrow minded.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
I think the solution to the problem is obvious. I believe in total freedom to believe in whatever one wants to. However, I think that each person should be allowed to benefit from science only what befits their beliefs. A creationist should not be allowed access to modern medicine, vaccinations, or any other result of biological science that has any input whatsoever from Darwin's contributions.
Simple as that.
If one doesn't accept scientific rational thinking and understanding, one shouldn't have access to any of the benefits of that rational scientific thinking.
I happen to think most creationists/religionists are hypocrites in that they freely accept the benefits of science while at the same time decrying its underlying precepts and principles.
Since then, I've kinda ended up being Agnostic, meaning "I don't know". I believe in the possibility of a God, but I have my doubts. I believe evolution is not only possible, but happened at least to some degree. I'm just not convinced it happened from scratch. I simply don't know, and I'm not comfortable believing what I'm told by either a preacher or a scientist. My search for truth continues. It seems to be a journey, not a destination.
Fierobear, have you read the bible? Even if you just read the new testiment I'm sure it will put to an end any doubts you may have. Take it from Gods mouth.
Originally posted by 86fierofun: Take it from Gods mouth. God bless.
Take it from Gods mouth? What the hell are you talking 'bout?
Some crazies following an angry Jew w/ desert heat on the brain? Savior? Messiah? Look into Egyptian mythology before you splat 'take it from Gods mouth'. When did God speak thru humans? Do they have to be virgins? Man that stuff gets crazy child like. Most of todays existing religions are Even the spiritual ones get on my nerves.
There are approx 4 billion humans on this godforsaken planet. Over 400 million people screw every night. Thousands die every day from hunger, disease etc.
I KNOW nature is perfect. Its the only thing that IS. It will eventually rid the earth of the top of the food chain-atmosphere stratosphere killin' oxygen pollutin' greedy back stabbing funny looking race called humans. The history of mankind is shameful. People IMHO should be judged on thier actions and NOT thier words.
I remember hearing about a convict that killed several people. He later repented and asked God for mercy. He then said he was a Christian & that Jesus forgave him before being electrocuted.
That idiot convict has the mind of a child-just like most bible belt morons.
1000 yrs from now (if humans are still here) they'll look back & say damn thats some stupid stuff
Also if I recall correctly: The dead sea scrolls state the stories in the Bible were for children. Look into it.
Stricker: Theres a little black frog discovered in S. America that will unlock your confused brain. Life started in the water...follow the trails wheatboy.
OUT>
IP: Logged
12:31 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Google didn't do well with "little black frog south america".
Why is it all you enlightened types have to resort to insults when asked to explain your beliefs?
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by G-Nasty:
Stricker: Theres a little black frog discovered in S. America that will unlock your confused brain. Life started in the water...follow the trails wheatboy.
My reference was that the bible is God's word as through the Holy Spirit, not human writers and accounts, but that only means something to christians. 1 Corinthians 1:18
My prayer for tonight: Holy spirit, please forgive all those who are tresspassing on me. As I walk thru the valley of dead (Wallstreet, CIA, Pentagon, Central Banks, Energy Co execs) where evil men conspire & become rich and poor forgiving brainless god-fearing non-violent men loose thier livelyhoods.... Uhhh wait a second, on second thought: Make sure ALL those demons in 3-piece suits burn in HELL
Whatever the hell Hell is.
OUT>
IP: Logged
01:01 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27116 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
My prayer for tonight: Holy spirit, please forgive all those who are tresspassing on me. As I walk thru the valley of dead (Wallstreet, CIA, Pentagon, Central Banks, Energy Co execs) where evil men conspire & become rich and poor forgiving brainless god-fearing non-violent men loose thier livelyhoods.... Uhhh wait a second, on second thought: Make sure ALL those demons in 3-piece suits burn in HELL
Whatever the hell Hell is.
OUT>
...and you guys wonder why I question human morality?
IP: Logged
01:25 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27116 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I understand what you are saying, you may or may not mean it to be malicious, but either way it is denigrating. I agree, no more confrontation. What about my response to your other question a few posts up?
I'll do my best to answer without any (intentional) denigration. Which post?
IP: Logged
01:30 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27116 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by JazzMan: If one doesn't accept scientific rational thinking and understanding, one shouldn't have access to any of the benefits of that rational scientific thinking. JazzMan
That doesn't sound very Liberal.
IP: Logged
01:37 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27116 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Fierobear, have you read the bible? Even if you just read the new testiment I'm sure it will put to an end any doubts you may have. Take it from Gods mouth.
God bless.
Yes, I have. Many years in Christian church, and 3 years in a Christian high school, where we were required to memorize verses. I'm not sure that the Bible, at least not all of it, is Gods word. If that be the case, then you can't use it to prove anything. Kinda like "the proof is whatever it says the proof is."
IP: Logged
01:39 AM
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
Originally posted by jstricker: Only if you assume that time had a beginning. Did it? Prove it.
while not a satisfactory proof for me, it ought to be good enough for you: get out your bible and turn to page 1. "In the beginning, ..." genesis. literal word of God, right?
[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 08-25-2005).]
Take it from Gods mouth? What the hell are you talking 'bout?
Nah, it's cute, in the same way my cat banging it's head off the wall somehow brings it food from an unknown source.. Why ask why, when doing/asking nothing brings the desired result for you.
IP: Logged
02:16 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Where in this thread have I said that I'm supporting the postition of the Bible being the literal word of God? In fact, I haven't said (except facetiously talking about the ancients and stargates) that I have a belief one way or the other EXCEPT that I don't believe the theory of the origin of life as taught in theory of evolution can not stand up to the light of scrutiny. Please, stay on topic.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by lurker:
while not a satisfactory proof for me, it ought to be good enough for you: get out your bible and turn to page 1. "In the beginning, ..." genesis. literal word of God, right?
IP: Logged
08:38 AM
PFF
System Bot
Tugboat Member
Posts: 1669 From: Goodview, VA Registered: Jan 2004
No, what I did was point out that he posted only ONE definition of scientific theory and there are others, but I ignored that fact and addressed through quotes what he wrote. I find it amazing that anyone will enter into a discussion such as this and then say when challenged to demonstrate why they believe something that is supposedly based on facts that don't bear up under scrutiny that "nobody cares that you don't think it's a valid theory". Guess what, nobody cares what you think either, for the most part. But since you entered the discussion if you have something to add other than smart assed comments (since Cliff told me that wasn't a banned word) then I'd be interested in hearing them.
So, again I ask any of you evolutionists that believe life began spontaneously and by chance to reconcile "A scientific theory is a unifying and self-consistent explanation of fundamental natural processes or phenomena that is totally constructed of corroborated hypotheses. A theory, therefore, is built of reliable knowledge--built of scientific facts" with the statement that is over-riding in the theory that "Something, somehow, began life with amino acids". Come up with a plausible explanation of that something, somehow, and you'll start to have a valid theory, until then it's no better than the "fairy tales" you deride so eagerly.
I'm also still waiting for one example of one species evolving into another different species. No takers, huh? Gee it's estimated that there are at least 10 million species and possibly as many as 100 million species of animals in the world now, not to mention those that have become extinct, and we're cataloging 15,000 new ones a year. Where is that crossover?? Things that make you go HMMMMMMMM.
John Stricker
PS: as for my credentials, do I have a phd? No. I do have a BS in Agriculture/Crop Science Genetics. Now, what credentials do you have?
The plausable explanations are out there, you just have your fingers in your ears going LA LA LA LALA. I could point you to more evidence, but it doesn't make any difference.
I'm not the one saying PHDs don't know what they're doing.
GL
IP: Logged
09:03 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Keep dancing around the questions Tugboat, that way you can hope that nobody notices that you don't have the answers.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Tugboat:
The plausable explanations are out there, you just have your fingers in your ears going LA LA LA LALA. I could point you to more evidence, but it doesn't make any difference.
I'm not the one saying PHDs don't know what they're doing.
GL
IP: Logged
09:09 AM
Tugboat Member
Posts: 1669 From: Goodview, VA Registered: Jan 2004
He posted the scientific defination of "theory". That you want to confuse that with other meanings of the word is just obfuscation.
Nobody cares that you don't think it's a valid theory - it works in the scientific world. Do you have the credentials to tell PHDs they're wrong?
GL
read the article you posted. but still have 1 question for those PHD's
if all of the factors they cite are true, when did all of the factors become a factor? "0 = 0 not 1 - so where did it all come from"
they have already used dna to prove a common origon for all humand beings , linking back to 1 female and 1 male that we all have in common. in the article you refered to (linked) they assume that the process of evolution is like (paraphrasing here) a billion biological expiraments happening at the same time. So how is it that our dna can be track back to a pair of (male and female) ancestors that we all have in common. If their position is right (inregards to evolution) we as human beings overcame the evolution process the day we started breeding .
which does beg the question, why did evolution only produce 2 human beings that could breed and manage to get the sex right. were there millions of human generated by evolution , were some gay or sterile?.. we have 2 human ancestors in common and these guy think that evolution some how explains it.
the idea that natural processes of randomly combined chemicals , bacteria, matter, water, etc. is quite ironic, since our landfills have yet to produce anything other than disease, toxins, pollutants, etc.. . the processes this article credit with bring about all that we see today , has a better chance of producing a hostile gas cloud that would wipe out life insted of encouraging it. yet those PHD's still haven't produced 1 thing (vegitable, minereal , insect or animal) without the use of repruductive processes already built into them, they still have to start with the origional in order to reproduce it. None of them as of yet has produced a life form in a glass of combines chemicals, proteins and emzymes. "call me when they do" - that would actually prove they are on to something, unlike having "PHD" at the end of their names.
[This message has been edited by JRM-2M6 (edited 08-25-2005).]
the idea that natural processes of randomly combined chemicals , bacteria, matter, water, etc. is quite ironic, since our landfills have yet to produce anything other than disease, toxins, pollutants, etc.. .
read the article you posted. but still have 1 question for those PHD's
if all of the factors they cite are true, when did all of the factors become a factor? "0 = 0 not 1 - so where did it all come from"
they have already used dna to prove a common origon for all humand beings , linking back to 1 female and 1 male that we all have in common. in the article you refered to (linked) they assume that the process of evolution is like (paraphrasing here) a billion biological expiraments happening at the same time. So how is it that our dna can be track back to a pair of (male and female) ancestors that we all have in common. If their position is right (inregards to evolution) we as human beings overcame the evolution process the day we started breeding .
which does beg the question, why did evolution only produce 2 human beings that could breed and manage to get the sex right. were there millions of human generated by evolution , were some gay or sterile?.. we have 2 human ancestors in common and these guy think that evolution some how explains it.
the idea that natural processes of randomly combined chemicals , bacteria, matter, water, etc. is quite ironic, since our landfills have yet to produce anything other than disease, toxins, pollutants, etc.. . the processes this article credit with bring about all that we see today , has a better chance of producing a hostile gas cloud that would wipe out life insted of encouraging it. yet those PHD's still haven't produced 1 thing (vegitable, minereal , insect or animal) without the use of repruductive processes already built into them, they still have to start with the origional in order to reproduce it. None of them as of yet has produced a life form in a glass of combines chemicals, proteins and emzymes. "call me when they do" - that would actually prove they are on to something, unlike having "PHD" at the end of their names.
I can hardly believe you are that dim. You think that evolution produced two human beings that mated and multiplied? Let me explain one real simple concept to you. DNA contains evidence of our past because we all come from the same biological beginnings, not because we all come from two humans that morphed into humans from another species all by themselves. Whole species evolved from existing species. In our case we are the only hominds left of a larger group that evolved from apes.
We are talking about nature selecting the best mutations and adaptations to suit the species' continued growth over long periods of time. The changes that help in survival and breeding are retained by the group. Over a long enough time incremental changes become noticeable differences. There is no "missing link" that shows half monkey half human. We have minor details shifting to that change. Our earliest ancestors did have ape like qualities but also had distinctly human qualities that helped them survive. Nature constantly changes and adapts to environmental changes or just allows them to better master their existing environment. This isn't something that happens in front of your eyes, but something that happens over long periods of time. In another millenia it's possible that a new species will have evolved out of an existing species. It is possible that an animal on the Galapagos islands could be isolated long enough that changes will eventually be so drastic that the animal will no longer be recognized as the same species.
[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 08-25-2005).]
IP: Logged
06:06 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27116 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: This isn't something that happens in front of your eyes, but something that happens over long periods of time. In another millenia it's possible that a new species will have evolved out of an existing species. If an animal on the Galapagos islands is isolated long enough the changes will be so drastic that the animal will no longer be the same species.
One problem I have with evolution - shouldn't we be able to see more of the interim steps in the path between very different creatures? For example, the path from dinosaurs to birds. I know there was recently some info about a half-bird, still a dinosaur but with feathers. But why wouldn't we have unearthed more interim steps from such a huge phyisical change?
Another problem I have is the benefit of mutation to a lifeform. Normally, a mutation results in an inferior organism, not a superior one. I have trouble believe that random mutations end up making a better organism, especially if it's a large change, such as a dinosaur to a bird. Birds have a very specific set of biological parameters that allow them to fly. If any of those parameters are off, the bird doesn't fly. I find it difficult to believe that a bird evolved from another creature, and ended up "just right".
One problem I have with evolution - shouldn't we be able to see more of the interim steps in the path between very different creatures? For example, the path from dinosaurs to birds. I know there was recently some info about a half-bird, still a dinosaur but with feathers. But why wouldn't we have unearthed more interim steps from such a huge phyisical change?
Another problem I have is the benefit of mutation to a lifeform. Normally, a mutation results in an inferior organism, not a superior one. I have trouble believe that random mutations end up making a better organism, especially if it's a large change, such as a dinosaur to a bird. Birds have a very specific set of biological parameters that allow them to fly. If any of those parameters are off, the bird doesn't fly. I find it difficult to believe that a bird evolved from another creature, and ended up "just right".
Have you ever seen an ostrich or an emu? They can't fly and look a bit like dino birds. IMO there are a lot of wierd combinations that we know of. Plus there are new fossils being found every day. People used to think that all the dinosaurs just dies off. Only in recent times have we discovered the probability of birds evolving from certain dinosaurs. That alone is a giant breakthrough in our understanding. We will find more records now that we know what to look for and whre to look. There are giant bird fossils of flightless birds that had wings but looked sort of like dinosaurs. But they were considered birds. There are also smaller dinosaurs with feathers that looked like birds, but are considered dinosaurs. I guess the answer is, we do have the steps in the fossil records to suggest the evolution of birds, but we don't have everything we would like to have. The evolution of birds has just recently become scientificly accredited even though some people have been suggesting that for years. There will always be new questions and missing pieces. We live in a huge world with a 4.5 billion year past.
BTW: Who says a bird is just right? They are still changing. Nothing is ever just right. Like the toe on a dogs heel.
[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 08-25-2005).]
Originally posted by JRM-2M6: read the article you posted. but still have 1 question for those PHD's
if all of the factors they cite are true, when did all of the factors become a factor? "0 = 0 not 1 - so where did it all come from"
they have already used dna to prove a common origon for all humand beings , linking back to 1 female and 1 male that we all have in common. in the article you refered to (linked) they assume that the process of evolution is like (paraphrasing here) a billion biological expiraments happening at the same time. So how is it that our dna can be track back to a pair of (male and female) ancestors that we all have in common. If their position is right (inregards to evolution) we as human beings overcame the evolution process the day we started breeding .
which does beg the question, why did evolution only produce 2 human beings that could breed and manage to get the sex right. were there millions of human generated by evolution , were some gay or sterile?.. we have 2 human ancestors in common and these guy think that evolution some how explains it.
the idea that natural processes of randomly combined chemicals , bacteria, matter, water, etc. is quite ironic, since our landfills have yet to produce anything other than disease, toxins, pollutants, etc.. . the processes this article credit with bring about all that we see today , has a better chance of producing a hostile gas cloud that would wipe out life insted of encouraging it. yet those PHD's still haven't produced 1 thing (vegitable, minereal , insect or animal) without the use of repruductive processes already built into them, they still have to start with the origional in order to reproduce it. None of them as of yet has produced a life form in a glass of combines chemicals, proteins and emzymes. "call me when they do" - that would actually prove they are on to something, unlike having "PHD" at the end of their names.
I hate to tell you this, but DNA says we're related to EVERYTHING living, including plants.
You know what really bothers me about 'science vs religion' debates? Scientists are running like hell away from religion because they are not concerned with the issue of WHY! They are only focused on the issue of HOW. HOW did this rock get here, HOW did this microbe mutate, HOW did the solar system form? And a handful of so-called religious leaders are chasing them down as if they are a threat to humanity for NOT beginning their research with predetermined assumptions about existence.
People who are unhealthily involved in their religious convictions feel threatened by science because they believe that if the greater community of thinkers comes to appreciate the reality of an issue and that reality contradicts their religious dogma, that they themselves, will be lost. I've never understood overly religous people, this is why I have kept largely out of this discussion. It's something I just don't get. I don't get how 900 people can drink Kool-Aid laced with cyanide in South America. I don't get the Bagwan Shree Rashnish. I don't get how people can put on purple tennis shoes and robes and wack themselves SINCERELY BELIEVING that in their death they will be spiritually wisked away by space aliens to a better civilization. I just can't grasp this stuff. For the same reason, I can't grasp the creationist mentality. I make no judgements about a man's FAITH...I emphasize "faith" because faith, by definition, is a belief in something that can not be proven. I judge quite openly, however, those who feel the need to somehow PROVE their faith (ie, creationism). I find this kind of "faith" to be insincere and if I do, don't you think God does too? Just a thought for those of you who think creationism should be considered a science. It's a faith. leave it there.
IP: Logged
07:37 PM
Tugboat Member
Posts: 1669 From: Goodview, VA Registered: Jan 2004
Originally posted by fierobear: One problem I have with evolution - shouldn't we be able to see more of the interim steps in the path between very different creatures? For example, the path from dinosaurs to birds. I know there was recently some info about a half-bird, still a dinosaur but with feathers. But why wouldn't we have unearthed more interim steps from such a huge phyisical change?
Another problem I have is the benefit of mutation to a lifeform. Normally, a mutation results in an inferior organism, not a superior one. I have trouble believe that random mutations end up making a better organism, especially if it's a large change, such as a dinosaur to a bird. Birds have a very specific set of biological parameters that allow them to fly. If any of those parameters are off, the bird doesn't fly. I find it difficult to believe that a bird evolved from another creature, and ended up "just right".
Do you think everything that dies gets fossilized?? It's a rare occurance. We have a few snapshots but you want a movie.
"Normally"?? How do you know that? Random mutations are only half of the process. Natural selection weeds out the worst examples so the population gets generally better fit to it's environment.
GL
IP: Logged
07:42 PM
Tugboat Member
Posts: 1669 From: Goodview, VA Registered: Jan 2004
Originally posted by Toddster: I judge quite openly, however, those who feel the need to somehow PROVE their faith (ie, creationism). I find this kind of "faith" to be insincere and if I do, don't you think God does too? Just a thought for those of you who think creationism should be considered a science. It's a faith. leave it there.
You're right, it's materialism.
quote
Originally posted by Toddster: You know what really bothers me about 'science vs religion' debates? Scientists are running like hell away from religion because they are not concerned with the issue of WHY! They are only focused on the issue of HOW. HOW did this rock get here, HOW did this microbe mutate, HOW did the solar system form? And a handful of so-called religious leaders are chasing them down as if they are a threat to humanity for NOT beginning their research with predetermined assumptions about existence.
Like you say, science focuses on HOW and leaves the WHY to philosophy and religeon. Keeping it pure is the only way it works.
GL
[This message has been edited by Tugboat (edited 08-25-2005).]
IP: Logged
08:01 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27116 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by Tugboat: Do you think everything that dies gets fossilized?? It's a rare occurance. We have a few snapshots but you want a movie.
I don't know, that's why I am asking.
Why do only some things get fossilized?
quote
"Normally"?? How do you know that? Random mutations are only half of the process. Natural selection weeds out the worst examples so the population gets generally better fit to it's environment.
GL
Can you show me one example of a modern mutation that is beneficial? If evolution happened for a billion years, then it must be an ongoing process, right?
You wouldn't understand the concept of liberalism if it bit you on the ass, besides, it's the conservatives that are against universal access and for profits at the expense of social responsibility.
One problem I have with evolution - shouldn't we be able to see more of the interim steps in the path between very different creatures? For example, the path from dinosaurs to birds. I know there was recently some info about a half-bird, still a dinosaur but with feathers. But why wouldn't we have unearthed more interim steps from such a huge phyisical change?
Another problem I have is the benefit of mutation to a lifeform. Normally, a mutation results in an inferior organism, not a superior one. I have trouble believe that random mutations end up making a better organism, especially if it's a large change, such as a dinosaur to a bird. Birds have a very specific set of biological parameters that allow them to fly. If any of those parameters are off, the bird doesn't fly. I find it difficult to believe that a bird evolved from another creature, and ended up "just right".
Think of the mutations that make bacteria immune to the effects of antibiotics. They are random mutations, but since the mutations that worked lead to bacteria that contain the mutation more often the result is a bacteria that never existed before, one that was immune to antibiotics. And this happened in less than a century. Imagine what kind of mutations and selections could occur in a million centuries.
You know what really bothers me about 'science vs religion' debates? Scientists are running like hell away from religion because they are not concerned with the issue of WHY! They are only focused on the issue of HOW. HOW did this rock get here, HOW did this microbe mutate, HOW did the solar system form? And a handful of so-called religious leaders are chasing them down as if they are a threat to humanity for NOT beginning their research with predetermined assumptions about existence.
People who are unhealthily involved in their religious convictions feel threatened by science because they believe that if the greater community of thinkers comes to appreciate the reality of an issue and that reality contradicts their religious dogma, that they themselves, will be lost. I've never understood overly religous people, this is why I have kept largely out of this discussion. It's something I just don't get. I don't get how 900 people can drink Kool-Aid laced with cyanide in South America. I don't get the Bagwan Shree Rashnish. I don't get how people can put on purple tennis shoes and robes and wack themselves SINCERELY BELIEVING that in their death they will be spiritually wisked away by space aliens to a better civilization. I just can't grasp this stuff. For the same reason, I can't grasp the creationist mentality. I make no judgements about a man's FAITH...I emphasize "faith" because faith, by definition, is a belief in something that can not be proven. I judge quite openly, however, those who feel the need to somehow PROVE their faith (ie, creationism). I find this kind of "faith" to be insincere and if I do, don't you think God does too? Just a thought for those of you who think creationism should be considered a science. It's a faith. leave it there.
Damn, you and I agree, I'll have to go bash my head in with a hammer now.
Science is a process, not an end result. It's only goal is to provide a rigorous means to test the validity of certain ideas that are in the position of being testable, and to integrate the results positive or negative into the greater pool of knowledge. That's why science can't be used in religion or philosophy, etc, because those areas don't have testable ideas that can be validated or invalidated using rigorous testing methods.
In science, you have to be prepared, and accepting, if your idea is proven wrong. If your idea is such that it cannot be tested then science doesn't even apply, and is completely nonrelevant.
It's the process that makes science so important. It's why we don't use leaches to treat infections anymore, and why we do use leaches to help revascularization in body part reattachment surgery. Science is why we don't sacrifice animals to increase crop yields, why we do amazing things for crop yields with genetics. Science is why we have modern medicine, and why the average age of death isn't 39 years anymore.
Science has no interest in, or applicability to, spiritual or metaphysical matters, and never seeks to involve itself with those, and never will. It's simple, they don't have testable ideas.
