Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[jaguar]

someone forgot their pills today.

[OnyxCougar]

Yeah, it's pretty much been trashed.

[mrnoodle]

Actually, it might be a useful case study for the thread. Did that evolve, or was it created by too much meth?

[Happy Monkey]

Are you sure?

[Happy Monkey]

You or I can say what we like about the reason for life. Evolution, being science, can not. It can only describe the mechanism, not the reason.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You or I can say what we like about the reason for life. Evolution, being science, can not. It can only describe the mechanism, not the reason.

Again, I did not think this was a scienctific site. However I guess a creationist would say the origin of life was to make a man in god's image. Maybe he was bored I don't know.... Evolution on the other hand, which has been argued now on over 360 post is a scientific theory. Creationist believe in the fundamentalism of the christian doctrine, where evolutionst believe in many different theories of the origin of life. Who cares???? When something is proven without a doubt concerning this topic, I will assure my undivided attention. Until then, let the sun shine in........

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher

Again, I did not think this was a scienctific site.

This is a discussion site. All topics are valid.

[Happy Monkey]

Religion was the equivalent of science - an attempt to make an orderly description of the operation of the world - before science was invented.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Religion was the equivalent of science - an attempt to make an orderly description of the operation of the world - before science was invented.

If that's the case, why the continued argument on this subject. Probably because others have different views......

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher

If that's the case, why the continued argument on this subject. Probably because others have different views......

People hold different views because they were making it up as they went along. At least with science everyone should end up on the same page, or at least in the same book.

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

People hold different views because they were making it up as they went along. At least with science everyone should end up on the same page, or at least in the same book.

I agree. With science we should be in the same book. However, in my opinion no one will ever be on the same page. I still do not think you can equate philosophy with science. Over the ages, philiosopy has been an opposite of science. The closest philosophy comes to science is when talking about the mathmatical equations of logic, which in my opinion is subjective. If you look carefully, I think you will find scientific minds will differ quite often on what some would say is a objective scientific fact. I do not believe that makes most scientific platitudes as non-factual. However, in most situations, I believe you wil find both deductive as well as inductive arguments; in most every statement made concerning science as it relates to philosophy......l

[Troubleshooter]

Philosophy is necessary. I'd rather that there were exploration into the why's and how's of man's existance than just leaving it unstudied.

[Paleobabe]

Conversation I had today:

"Why do people get so upset over evolution? It's just a theory."

"A scientific theory is basically equivalent to fact."

"No a theory is when you say 'I think this happens because...'"

"No that's a hypothesis."

"what? No that's a theory."

"No a scientific theory is an idea that can be tested in multiple ways and the results always jive with the idea."

"I don't believe you. I've never heard that before."

"Well why don't you look up 'scientific theory' and then get back to me."

"I'm not going to look in YOUR book!

[tw]

Originally Posted by Paleobabe

Conversation I had today:
"Why do people get so upset over evolution? It's just a theory."
"A scientific theory is basically equivalent to fact."
"No a theory is when you say 'I think this happens because...'"
"No that's a hypothesis."
"what? No that's a theory."
"No a scientific theory is an idea that can be tested in multiple ways and the results always jive with the idea."
"I don't believe you. I've never heard that before."
"Well why don't you look up 'scientific theory' and then get back to me."
"I'm not going to look in YOUR book!

You have demonstrated why people waste good money on Listerene. Simple principles were taught in junior high school science. To have a fact, both underlying concepts AND experimental evidence are required. Without both, then one only has, at best, a theory. Without both concepts, then they have wild speculation, urban myth, or political rhetoric. To have both science concepts and experimental confirmation, then proven principles of science and the *numbers* are required.

Blind worshippers *feel* Listerene working in their mouth AND therefore *know* it must be doing something. If Listerene does anything effective, then a quarter teaspoon of Vodka does as much.

Religion is best described as wild speculation - or what mankind did many thousands of years ago when philosophy was the only science. When tools of science did not exist. To deny this, others must obfuscate, pervert, confuse, or use Rush Limbaugh propaganda techniques to promote religious rhetoric over logical thought. And yes, so many are so easily perverted by emotion - deny the facts - that 70% of us believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. This is when those with numbers and experience were ignored as they reported contrarian facts - ie no uranium from Niger. Mythical weapons that just made no sense once we applied numbers to wild speculation.

One factor consistent among those who believe - facts be damned - is they avoid all numbers. Same applies to religious extremists, 'Harry Potter' witchcraft, teachings of the KKK, or "Psychic friends".

Rather surprising how many 20 year olds cannot read a map, believe the first thing they are told, AND still don't understand basic science concepts. It does not end with Listerene or worshipers of the Pond's Institute for 'age defying cream'. It is how Joseph Goebels could so easily promote Hitler's agenda. Get them to assume emotionally rather than think logically.

Paleobabe has simply posted another example of those who even deny what was demonstrated in junior high school science. These are people most easily recruited for tasks such as suicide bombers or cannon fodder for the military's front line.

[Griff]

I'm pretty bummed that the Vatican hasn't slapped down the Cardinal who played the intelligent design card recently. The Church had pretty well pulled herself out of the middle ages but now... who knows?