Creationism?

[Grapist]

Originally Posted by Leixes

So we all agree, Creationists shouldn't be allowed to vote!



@Grapist
There is not a difference between science and science of evolution.

<science of evolution> is based on facts - a lot of them! - and is falsifiable! And it hasn't been! And allows us to make predictions! Which have been confirmed! Evolution theory is Science.

That's it you're not allowed to vote!

Awwww, I love it when the atheists get all up in arms when you make a valid, obvious point. But indoctrination is indoctrination, whether Christians do it to you, or Secular Humanists.

[Leixes]

Originally Posted by Grapist

Awwww, I love it when the atheists get all up in arms when you make a valid, obvious point. But indoctrination is indoctrination, whether Christians do it to you, or Secular Humanists.

Allah will make you burn in hell!

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by yoav

Everyone doesn't realize that 'religion, science, and philosophy are the same thing' because they're not. they may share a common root 'explaining the world around us', but they have different purposes, methods, challenges, and angles of insight.

Ok, we'll agree to disagree. I don't understand the insight that religion provides. Its challenges are purely self-created. Philosophy, yes. I love philosophy, but I think its practical use towards understanding reality is limited by the fact that it's outside the framework of science.

I'm not a blind proponent of science, but I believe it's the best we've got, and we (and you) can help refine it. I realize most research is bullshit. Many scientists and professors are corrupt, lead not by the pursuit of truth, but the desire for fame, funding, and tenure. But I believe the shitty research is weeded out with time, through the process of self-reflection. A process largely absent from religion, and partly, philosophy.

I understand Godel's incompleteness theorem, and the potential futility of our pursuit, but look at all the good we've unlocked through reason. People complain about technology leading to the demise of the life on Earth, however, early research shows that all life on Earth will probably be extinguished in 5-6 billion years when the sun goes Red Giant. Humans are the currently Earth's best shot at continuing the process we call life.

Not that it really matters in the end. Life most definitely exists elsewhere, or in other dimensions, or whatever you believe. So, if your existence is cosmically meaningless, try to maximize your utility in your one shot at life. Even if the term 'utility' is ambiguous.

[Leixes]

Originally Posted by dzagama

Ok, we'll agree to disagree. I don't understand the insight that religion provides. Its challenges are purely self-created. Philosophy, yes. I love philosophy, but I think its practical use towards understanding reality is limited by the fact that it's outside the framework of science.

I'm not a blind proponent of science, but I believe it's the best we've got, and we (and you) can help refine it. I realize most research is bullshit. Many scientists and professors are corrupt, lead not by the pursuit of truth, but the desire for fame, funding, and tenure. But I believe the shitty research is weeded out with time, through the process of self-reflection. A process largely absent from religion, and partly, philosophy.

I understand Godel's incompleteness theorem, and the potential futility of our pursuit, but look at all the good we've unlocked through reason. People complain about technology leading to the demise of the life on Earth, however, early research shows that all life on Earth will probably be extinguished in 5-6 billion years when the sun goes Red Giant. Humans are the currently Earth's best shot at continuing the process we call life.

Not that it really matters in the end. Life most definitely exists elsewhere, or in other dimensions, or whatever you believe. So, if you existence is cosmically meaningless, try to maximize your utility in your one shot at life. Even if the term 'utility' is ambiguous.

Well I want some of that you're taking!
Salvia? Weed? Vicodin? Xanax?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by yoav

@dzagama, people aren't robots, you aren't understanding the world around you better by aspiring to be one, you're just missing a huge piece of the puzzle and will never understand by doing so how the pure science relates to you and your life, and us and our culture if you never explore it from a philosophical standpoint as well.

People are wonderous biological machines. We work in a manner that is a microcosm of how everything else works. I think making that kind of connection, as ourselves as part of something greater but no less grand, is relating science to our lives.

or at least a less clinical way of seeing it.

[Grapist]

The problem with most people who use the term "Evolution", don't realize that it is a blanket statement that covers two classes of evolution "Micro evolution" the kind that takes place and is observable, and "Macro Evolution" the process of trying to build an historical model of how our planets entire current flora/fawna ecosystems came into existence. They aren't the same.

[Leixes]

Originally Posted by Grapist

The problem with most people who use the term "Evolution", don't realize that it is a blanket statement that covers two classes of evolution "Micro evolution" the kind that takes place and is observable, and "Macro Evolution" the process of trying to build an historical model of how our planets entire current flora/fawna ecosystems came into existence. They aren't the same.

They are not??? Why? State your case!

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by yoav

evolution isn't looking at history. every year the flu evolves, as do many other things we've observed that have a significantly shorter lifetime than we do. it's a process that's been proven and understood to the point that we've charted our entire genetic code, and been able to manually evolve crops to grow better in poor conditions.



you just said two seconds ago that they're the same thing, now you went and contradicted yourself. that's called agreeing to agree. religion used to and still does to an extent provide insight into law, morality, and culture. it's weird that as you get closer to a phd you're narrowing your scope of understanding of the world.. should be the opposite shouldn't it?

Fiction and non-fiction go under the rubric of literature. Only one, technically, is based in true events. I can't argue with someone backed by faith, which I take it that you are. I respect that, and it's fine. I didn't mean to attack something that gives you "law, morality, and culture".

From this point on, we're probably going to be playing a semantics game. For where you say, 'religion', I could put 'philosophy' or 'science'.

I hate playing the role of a scientific ideologue, but I think you're missing my point and I'm missing yours. I said that religion/philosophy/science are the same thing, similar to how an embryo, a child, and an adult are the same thing, just at different stages. Religion had its use, but it's rigidity (being backed by divine and absolute truth, delivered through human mouths and hands) makes it useless in modern times.

I'm not against religion, in the sense that people should be free to do what they want. But to think that it provides immutable truth, I think is wrong.

[dzagama]

I should also point out, that I guess I do believe in the concept of 'god', but it seems to be completely separate from popular descriptions of God.

My god is of my own creation. It's not an entity in heaven or hell, it does not interact with reality in the way described by major religions. My concept of god is reality, the joy of being, the joy of matter, the joy of understanding.

I don't know why anyone would take someone else's unproven concept of god as their own, unless you believe in 'divinity'; which I can't accept. I am divine, as is everyone and everything that exists. It's all miraculous, in a sense. god speaks through me, and is me, and is you, and is inanimate matter. I don't need someone to dictate more than that core idea to me.

[Grapist]

Originally Posted by Leixes

They are not??? Why? State your case!

Well, it's kind of obvious really, but anyway. You can't extrapolate what is observable in one celled organisms or even complex organisms to describe what has taken place of in the past. A huge part of the concept of macro-evolution is that there must be transitions within the ecosystems in which organisms become more complex in their biologies, moving from single celled, to more complex forms, from sea creatures to land dwelling creatures, etc). This is not directly obvservable or proven by the simple fact that the flu changes from year to year, or that medically resistant forms of germs evolve. No transition is taking place, simply survival of the fittest. No one has ever observed a transition taking place in nature, and to link the two is reaching at best. However, if you are told this enough times, over and over again, it becomes an ingrained part of your point of view. Thus the term, "indoctrination".