General

[Party]

Originally Posted by Walking Target

It is true though, there is no supporting evidence for Intelligent Design, whereas i can head over to the ROM and see, with my own two eyes, evidence from the fossil record that supports the Theory of Evolution.

I saw the Darwin exhibit there over March break, it was very well done.

The bottom line is that "creationalism" and "intelligent design" are nothing close to real science and do not deserve to be treated as such.
And if one insist on studying them they have to look at the stories of all religions, not just one. Because the faiths that are most common presently are neither the first nor the last to ever to be followed so why should they be any true then any others?

None of this really matters anymore. For every "scientist" that says one thing, you have another 10 to disagree. And in all actuality it has been going on forever. At least now they only get shunned and not killed.

Yes, but only when they all agree on one thing does it become commonly accepted among the community and only when it is proven beyond a doubt it becomes fact.
And it's not like all religious people are anywhere close to agreeing on anything.

I remember in undergrad they changed the rate of gravity so we wouldn't have to use calculators. Seriously WTF!?!?! over?

Yea, but that was very wrong of them to do so.
But we all know the aproximate real value of acceleration due to gravity here on earth (9.80665 m/s²) and anyone who tries to preach a different value will not be taken seriously.
(BTW how the HELL do you need to use calculators for 9.8? What did you change it to??)

On the otherhand in religion you can claim anything you want and use extremly ambiguous teachings and texts to back up what you are saying.
Hell I can find quotes from the bible supporting rape, genocide, and murder.
Am I any more wrong then those who use the bible to teach against such actions?
Prove it.
You can't, and that's why you cannot possibly use anything taught by religion to conduct science.

[HP_Lovecraft]

Originally Posted by Party of A-5

You can't, and that's why you cannot possibly use anything taught by religion to conduct science.

I agree.

Though the general point of Ben Stein was also accurate.

Science research and funding being controlled by politically motivated groups is not much better then religiously motivated groups. Both have an agenda that clouds the results, and can not be trusted.

Evolution, for example, used to have 2 seperate groups. The "Natural Selection", and "Genetic drift" groups. They were alternate theories, and both groups would make studies proven the other theory was totally wrong. Eventually, the conclusion was that both groups were partially right.

Or "string theory", for example. There is no science that proves it, yet for much of the 80s-90s, it was so trendy that mathematicians were afraid to say anything bad about it, for fear that they would be outcast.

Or the light as "wave verses particle". etc.
Ben Stein makes an accurate point, in general, though I don't agree with his specific example. Religion should be seperate from Science. Both are the better from that.

nick

[dann]

Originally Posted by Party of A-5

The bottom line is that "creationalism" and "intelligent design" are nothing close to real science and do not deserve to be treated as such. And if one insist on studying them they have to look at the stories of all religions, not just one.

That is where you are wrong. Wrong about intelligent design, at least. It is incredibly possible to study intelligent design without a hint of religion. In fact, do you know how famed hardcore evolutionist Richard Dawkins explained the actual origin of life? Life was created by crystals or implanted on Earth by an advanced alien civilization. No mention of religion whatsoever.

-Dan

[heinous]

Originally Posted by dann

That is where you are wrong. Wrong about intelligent design, at least. It is incredibly possible to study intelligent design without a hint of religion. In fact, do you know how famed hardcore evolutionist Richard Dawkins explained the actual origin of life? Life was created by crystals or implanted on Earth by an advanced alien civilization. No mention of religion whatsoever.

-Dan

you won't see that being taught in grade school intelligent design courses.

[thkyle]

Originally Posted by Painthappy

I think all that Stein wants to get across is that if you have a dissenting point of view, you are shunned, you don't get grants, and are run out of the scientific community.

Stein brings up the fact about intelligent design (for lack of a better word), not in the meaning that the world was created in 7 days or whatever, or that the world is only 50 years old per the bible or something.

No offense to the religious types, I just know nothing about that stuff, and some people mis-interpret the intelligent design as just that.

Stein uses it to help answer the question: "Where did it come from?"

I'm a science person myself, but it IS an amazing question that you can not answer, and it's that argument and point of view that we can not shun. And I feel that's what the movie is about. (Again, from only what I've read).

Where did it come from?

The earth was created by dust particles and blah blah blah.

But where did it come from?

The big bang

But where did it come from?

You keep asking that question, and you get to the point of... it HAD to be created. Maybe not by a whom, or what, or how, or... we have no idea how that first whatever was created and where it came from.

To me, that's a HUGE and awesome philosophical question for both science and religion. I mean... Science could potentially prove religion right?

Anyhow, know nothing of the movie, doubt I'll make my way out to go see it. But it just seems to me that too many people get caught up in the semantics and the really cool questions get lost and never answered or debated.

For someone that didn't see the movie, that is an outstanding reply and shows some well though through insight!

To me, that's a HUGE and awesome philosophical question for both science and religion. I mean... Science could potentially prove religion right?

This is close to my opinion, which is always open to debate and for change, but I don't see how it is possible for these to be in conflict. It is impossible for them to be separated. Their approach and disciplines are different, but they both seek to answer the same questions.

Intelligent Design was not invented by the church. There is a huge segment of the church that doesn't like Intelligent Design any more than it likes Evolution.

It was conceived to be neutral ground so that the huge holes in the thinking of both the evolutionist and the religious could have free exchange of ideas..............it has failed miserably.......... but the free exchange of ideas must not.

To be fair, it should be said that the halls of science are not simply an exclusive club for atheists either. This is not true either.

If we as a nation are going to be intellectually honest in our pursuit of answers, we need to show respect for one others approach to understanding the unknown and unseen. Whether we believe in God or the force! Whether we are atheists, or as Richard Dawkins replied to Ben Stein's question of how it all started, "it was aliens, or something, anything but God!" These concepts are going to need to be included in the free exchange of ideas if we expect to ever have the correct complete theory.

There is even bias within the scientific community itself against "theory" that can't be proven by experiment. They say that it's too "metaphysical" to be "real" science. Yet every week, someone finally finds a way to demonstrate and observe the theory to be sound, and a new door to inventions, study and better designs is opened up to improving our technology. Perhaps even more importantly, a thousand new questions appear that beg to be answered.

We must be able to share our views, and at the same time show respect to the different views of others, or our culture and our country is going to stagnate and possibly face painful times ahead. Freedom is far too important.

[Harbinger[TG]]

Originally Posted by Walking_Target

9.8 meters per second per second

of course, that is negating any resistance through the atmosphere and assuming 'sea level' values rather than a couple hundered kilometers up.

Originally Posted by Party of A-5

I saw the Darwin exhibit there over March break, it was very well done.

The bottom line is that "creationalism" and "intelligent design" are nothing close to real science and do not deserve to be treated as such.
And if one insist on studying them they have to look at the stories of all religions, not just one. Because the faiths that are most common presently are neither the first nor the last to ever to be followed so why should they be any true then any others?


Yes, but only when they all agree on one thing does it become commonly accepted among the community and only when it is proven beyond a doubt it becomes fact.
And it's not like all religious people are anywhere close to agreeing on anything.



Yea, but that was very wrong of them to do so.
But we all know the aproximate real value of acceleration due to gravity here on earth (9.80665 m/s²) and anyone who tries to preach a different value will not be taken seriously.
(BTW how the HELL do you need to use calculators for 9.8? What did you change it to??)

On the otherhand in religion you can claim anything you want and use extremly ambiguous teachings and texts to back up what you are saying.
Hell I can find quotes from the bible supporting rape, genocide, and murder.
Am I any more wrong then those who use the bible to teach against such actions?
Prove it.
You can't, and that's why you cannot possibly use anything taught by religion to conduct science.

it was changed to 10. This is the same prof that said regardless of how high i could launch a ball that it would land in the same spot. I LOLd and tried to point out things like wind, and the earths rotation

[shadawg]

and if we are going to start giving equal time to learning intelligent design and all of it wonderous theories then we can take some time to discuss how my god, the flying spaghetti monster, actually created the world and all of it's wonders with his noodly appendage.
Please visit my church: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Find out how:
He created the world
Why pirates, or lack thereof has caused global warming, and what YOU can do about it.

The Guide to Pastafarianism
http://www.venganza.org/flash/guidet...mpreloaded.swf

[Cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by HP_Lovecraft

Unfortunetly, this is not a perfect world.

MANY parts of our human understanding are debated, and not fully understood. The science funding process is largely controlled by left-wing groups. No surprise there, just like mutual funds are largely controlled by right-wing groups.

And the bottom line is that there are conflicting theories, and conflicting hypothesis. People tend to think that science only deals with facts, and this is very, very far from the truth. Usually, the facts are never known, but only implied, and you have to pick sides based ony our believes, as well as funding.

The examples I used before clearly show this: Global Warming, and Eugenics. Both were considered "science", even though both lacked any evidence. Scientists were refused funding, and outcast if they didn't follow the herd.

In short, the funding/grant process for scientific research is extremely corrupt. It RARELY is designed to prove theories, but instead usually to back agendas. that is simply a fact of the world we live in.

what your forgetting is that science requires a quantitative and testable hypothesis.

intelligent design, creationism, these things are not science nor hypothesis in any type of scientific debate.

can you test with quantifiable results that god guided evolution as intelligent design states?

no, you can't - ever.

its a belief, not a testable hypothesis.

[Harbinger[TG]]

Originally Posted by shadawg

and if we are going to start giving equal time to learning intelligent design and all of it wonderous theories then we can take some time to discuss how my god, the flying spaghetti monster, actually created the world and all of it's wonders with his noodly appendage.
Please visit my church: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Find out how:
He created the world
Why pirates, or lack thereof has caused global warming, and what YOU can do about it.

The Guide to Pastafarianism
http://www.venganza.org/flash/guidet...mpreloaded.swf

HAHAHAHA

I think you ate your so-called god.

[Party]

Originally Posted by Harbinger[TG]

HAHAHAHA

I think you ate your so-called god.

Hey, you don't bash my god and I don't bash yours.
Cool?