Ye Religion Thread

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Yea i think i got it.
If you would have read my previous post before editing yours you would have noticed that i used wikipedia and came up with a pretty good expanation of the word Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


Thanks

[deft]

What's the point you're trying to make by defining the word theory?

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Theory of gravity.

Umm, you mean the law of gravity ???

 

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

What's the point you're trying to make by defining the word theory?

none

[deft]

I have a "theory" that you're very "special" and "Jesus" is lucky to have you on his "side"

[quadz]

The best current "THEORY" is exactly what is supposed to be taught in science class.

And yes I know and agree with this too.

But when you talk about the origin of man you are talking about something runs extremely deep and controversial.

What would it tell us if it were true that the only people to whom evolution is currently controversial, are the same people who profess a willingness to believe things on faith rather than evidence?

There are different theories about the origin of man.

Theories.  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

There are different stories and conjectures about the origin of man.  Can you name any of these (or whatever you are calling 'theories') which will allow us to make correct predictions about what we will find when we dig in the ground, or look under a microscope?

Have any of these alleged theories been published in a scientific journal for peer review?

Should they be denied knowledge of those theories and ideas???

What sort of 'knowledge' is there to actually communicate?

It should take a few minutes to explain something like:

  - Historically, claims have been made that certain biological structures are too complex to have evolved via natural selection.  For instance: the eyeball, spiders' web spinning ability, or the bacterial flagellar motor.
  - However, evolutionary avenues have been discovered showing how such structures and mechanisms can or did evolve step by step from simpler structures.  (We'll learn more about the evolution of these mechanisms in chapter 7.)
  - Historically, claims have been made that the biology we see today is too 'perfect' to have evolved without supernatural aid.
  - However, such claims amount to arguments from incredulity, and there are plenty of counter-examples.  Consider your own appendix.  Consider what's going on between our legs: an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system.  Consider the design of the human eye, which turns out to be--while amazing--an incredibly bizarrely inefficient arrangement of optics.  Consider the "design weaknesses inherent in the human backbone and its constrictive pelvic girdle contribute to such ailments as scoliosis, sciatica, hernias, prolapse of the uterus and painfully problematic births."^[1]  All of which are perfectly compatible with and indeed make sense as a result of evolution by natural selection, but which would raise questions about the intelligence or competence of any designer.  (We'll learn more about the evolution of some of these sytems in chapters 9 and 11.)

...OK.  That should take a few minutes.  Are we done?  Can we spend the rest of the semester on science?

After all School is about learning all things, not just what suites a specific group of people.
I guess the question now would be: If ONLY evolution should be taught in science class should there be an alternative class that can be taken along side of their required science class?
And if so, what would the class be called?

Hmm... Alchemy.  Astrology.  Comparitive Religion.  Bronze Age Creation Myths 101?

Dunno....


Regards,

[quadz]

Theory of gravity.

Umm, you mean the law of gravity ???

No... It's a work in progress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

[quadz]

The theory of evolution AND the theory that everything is to perfect and complex to have just worked out.

The latter is not a scientific theory.  It's an argument from incredulity.

Of coarse it isn't.
Hmm, never really recall calling it a Scientific theory.

If you're aware it's not a scientific theory, why would you even advocate it being taught in science class?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=incredulity&go=Go
No article title matches
No page with that title exists.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=argument+from+incredulity&btnG
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=argument+from+incredulity&btnG

Results 1 - 10 of about 135,000 for argument from incredulity. (0.15 seconds)

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity

Example: I can't imagine how bread rises without fairies; therefore, I believe in faeries.


Regards,

[[BTF]EyEsTrAiN]

There are different theories about the origin of man.
Should they be denied knowledge of those theories and ideas???
After all School is about learning all things, not just what suites a specific group of people.
I guess the question now would be: If ONLY evolution should be taught in science class should there be an alternative class that can be taken along side of their required science class?
And if so, what would the class be called?

But where do you draw the line at what should be taught about the origin of man? If enough people believed that we were transplanted here from another planet by aliens, should that idea be taught as well? Or the idea that in fact, this is all just one person's dream, and reality as we know it does not exist; the universe and all in it will end when that person wakes up.

I can tell you exactly what class creationism should be taught in: Philosophy.

Science and faith are two aspects of a coin called being human. Anyone can choose to believe, contrary to any facts presented to them, whatever they want to. People do it all the time, in relationships, at jobs, ect. I can choose to believe a spouse isn't cheating on me, that doesn't make it true. I can have faith that if I do a good job at work, I will get promoted, but that isn't always the case. Blood can believe he is the greatest quake 2 player on the planet, but there are demo's that prove otherwise. 

Science is about logic. Its about gathering evidence to support or disprove an idea (i.e. theory). Philosophy, on the other hand, has more of a basis on personal belief in how you think things work. To the scientist, the sky is blue because molecules in the air scatter blue light from the sun more than they scatter red light. To the philosopher, the sky is blue because it reflects the ocean, just as the ocean is blue because it reflects the sky.

I have no problem with the idea of creationism being taught in school, but it should be placed in the appropriate area of study.

 

[DaHanG]

DS...a wiki link to the word "theory" does not apply.

There is a difference between the term theory in every day language, and a scientific theory.

Gravity is accepted as a law of gravity and a theory of gravity. They are not mutually exclusive. Evolution is both a law (in biology) and a theory as well.

heh, OK mabey I did get a little pissy there.
But believe me, I have a good understanding of what science is and why it's important.

Seems to me a good understanding starts with knowing the scientific method and what a scientific theory is (as distinct from theory).

Please, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

[haunted]

Evolution undoubtedly exists. Everything evolves. There is no debate.

[FYATroll]

Not the greatest of arguements

[DaHanG]

On the other hand...it's not an issue worthy of arguing over.

[reaper]

explain this picture without evolution.

[deft]

God did it.  Those apes must have God in their life, otherwise they'd be murdering and raping each other.