Topic Summary
Posted by: ChavesChaves
« on: October 04, 2009, 03:10 pm »
Why do they have to be morons because of a belief system?
They aren't morons because of a belief system. The belief system is the effect not the cause. They are most likely morons due to a lack of intelligence, socio-economic conditions and a failed education system. Or they are totally normal but just think cameras steal your soul. The Earth is flat. It's the center of the universe and rides on the back of a giant sea turtle. The moon is made of cheese. And meteors are Thor's angry fists pulverizing infidels. Wait. The last one is true.
Posted by: Oatmeal
« on: October 04, 2009, 03:09 pm »
Do you remember the lemur fossil that was in the news this passed year? That fossil was tucked away in a basement in New York (I think) since the 80's. It makes me wonder what else scientists are keeping in their basements.
Things that they are no doubt studying, dusting off and preparing for suitable presentation.
Posted by: Lucy Glitters
« on: October 04, 2009, 01:47 pm »
National Geographic
..no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/
45% of adults are complete morons. The Lord works in mysterious ways. 
Why do they have to be morons because of a belief system?
I would say it just from the fact that they are taking a book from the bible very literally and interpreting it as science. They are completely missing the original intent and taking it for something else. I would be wary of the 45% though. Seems like an odd statistic.
Posted by: Lucy Glitters
« on: October 04, 2009, 01:43 pm »
We didn't evolve from monkeys.
Posted by: megski
« on: October 04, 2009, 09:43 am »
It's amazing that people can accept other scientific theories as fact, and yet evolution somehow is hard to accept. I think it's because humans are arrogant and the idea that they were not created in the image of some deity makes their lives meaningless. They refuse to crack open a book or check out websites like talkorogins.org and continue to say ignorant things like "I didn't come from a monkey, or " If we came from monkeys, then why are there still gorillas?"
I think people are just afraid of the theory being it could prove that God didn't make us. If God is all you feel like you have and one day its proven he doesn't exist, what do you have? Intelligent Design is another suggestion as to where people came from. I've met some people that didn't believe in any of them. I've been confused about that. Do you remember the lemur fossil that was in the news this passed year? That fossil was tucked away in a basement in New York (I think) since the 80's. It makes me wonder what else scientists are keeping in their basements. I've never liked the monkey comment either, thats not what its about.
Posted by: megski
« on: October 04, 2009, 09:35 am »
National Geographic
..no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/
45% of adults are complete morons. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Why do they have to be morons because of a belief system?
Posted by: megski
« on: October 04, 2009, 09:30 am »
The thing with empericism is that is that there really aren't any guidelines that go along with it. Its all based on personal opinion being that its philosophical in nature. In my opinion, it covers such a broad spectrum of thinking, how are there any rules to say who's wrong and who's right based on what their experience with a phenomenon?
-There are very strict guidelines for the scientific process.
I realize this about evolution. Did you ever read "The Origin of Species?" I tried but I had such a hard time trying to understand the older style language.
-I'm reading it right now. I actually re-started it because I wanted to take notes on it, as opposed to merely reading.
To be honest, I was surprised how easy it is to read- better than some of the biology textbooks I've dealt with.
I agree that creationism cannot be categorized as conventional science, but as far as the philisophical side of science, I don't see why it couldn't.
-What philosophical side of science? Science is empirical. You could say that as a purely philosophical idea, creationism might work, but not in any scientific sense.
I never said theories graduate into laws, and by putting "just" in front of theory, I was only trying to explain that theories can constantly change and are not concrete.
-You said it was "just... a theory, ...but not a law". Theories and laws are totally different, and one is not "superior" to the other. The fact that evolution is not a law is not a shortcoming or flaw on its part, it's just the nature of what a theory is. Scientific laws are just as susceptible to invalidation or modification as theories.
I guess that my interpretation of emperical science is different or just wrong. I wish I still had my copy. I just remember reading some of it and kind of joking to myself, "A finch that hath different beak! Thou hast seen a pattern." I'm sitting here trying to remember something from it to prove I did read some of it, but I've got nothing. I should probably go and get another copy. touche.
Posted by: Ratsnake
« on: October 04, 2009, 09:13 am »
It's amazing that people can accept other scientific theories as fact, and yet evolution somehow is hard to accept. I think it's because humans are arrogant and the idea that they were not created in the image of some deity makes their lives meaningless. They refuse to crack open a book or check out websites like talkorogins.org and continue to say ignorant things like "I didn't come from a monkey, or " If we came from monkeys, then why are there still gorillas?"
Posted by: ChavesChaves
« on: October 04, 2009, 01:29 am »
National Geographic..no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/
45% of adults are complete morons. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Posted by: Oatmeal
« on: October 03, 2009, 05:27 pm »
It will make vibrations in the air but it isn't sound unless it's actually heard and interpreted as such.
How do you know there are trees, given that you can't hear them and most likely can't see them, if you can't empirically prove the existence of these trees falling as you cannot hear them falling nor, for the sake of argument, see them, then I have no reason to believe you in saying these trees are falling let alone exist for that matter. This is the point, no? It is both half empty and half full at the same time.
It's completely full, smartass.
Posted by: megman13
« on: October 03, 2009, 05:23 pm »
It will make vibrations in the air but it isn't sound unless it's actually heard and interpreted as such.
It is both half empty and half full at the same time.
Posted by: Oatmeal
« on: October 03, 2009, 05:15 pm »
Well, when you sit around speculating all day, no wonder your only intellectual status is defined by the question, " If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
I digress. Is the glass half empty or half full? Who cares, it's time for a refill.
Posted by: megman13
« on: October 03, 2009, 05:12 pm »
When it comes to empirical things, clearly, science wins (even though, as I said, I consider science to be a type of philosophy, so, I suppose philosophy still wins indirectly). The problem is that science is limited to the empirical, whereas philosophy gives us an option to explore that which is not empirical.
Posted by: Oatmeal
« on: October 03, 2009, 05:07 pm »
Thanks for clarifying.
Aristotle is a good example of Philosophy vs. Science, he never tested his ideas, but waves of people followed him, as he did speak of heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones.
Posted by: megman13
« on: October 03, 2009, 04:59 pm »
As far as I'm aware, symbolic logic is considered a branch of philosophy.
Then again, I've always been inclined to categorize science as a subset of philosophy (rising from skepticism and empiricism).
It seems to have become trendy to try to belittle philosophy, but true philosophy is, IMO, quite respectable.
H$U$
Thinking of donating to H$U$?
Someone who takes Wendy Malick or Wayne Pacelle up on their infomercial request for "just $19 dollars a month" will pay HSUS $228 over the course of a year. Of that, just $1.03 will reach a pet shelter.
Change Look
|
