Page 1 of 2
What If We Just Let The Evolutionists Go At It?
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:19 pm
by Believer
I have a serious question, what would science, people, the world, etc... be like if we just allowed the evolutionists to go at it without presenting problems in it to them? What would be different compared to today? Would religion become obsolete? Basically, what would happen to everything?
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:34 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Well there we go, the end of science...no inquiry into scientific theories, once a theory is "proven" no questions are alloewd.
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:18 pm
by SpaceCase
Are you suggesting that evolutionists are interested in the creationist viewpoint now?
I dont think so.
But religion would not die, because a lot of us know, that details like the age of the universe and evolution (or some version of it) do not preclude the existence of GOD.
Even if they managed to create life in a lab, that would not prove it would have happened through random events.
We are not here by chance.
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:27 pm
by ncheropoulos
in my opinion, religion is the purest and oldest of all sciences. It is concerned with the "Know Why". It is a purpose thing.
Science is a Cult. It is so focused on the "Know How". It overlooks the "Know Why" completely.
The reason is obvious. You can not find purpose in the material world (the world of science). Asking for it would mean an admision of the existence of the divine. You can not act like you are God and at the same time believe in Him.
RE:
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:25 am
by Ark~Magic
in my opinion, religion is the purest and oldest of all sciences. It is concerned with the "Know Why". It is a purpose thing.
Science is a Cult. It is so focused on the "Know How". It overlooks the "Know Why" completely.
The reason is obvious. You can not find purpose in the material world (the world of science). Asking for it would mean an admision of the existence of the divine. You can not act like you are God and at the same time believe in Him.
That is one of the most awesome quotes ever.
Re: RE:
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:30 pm
by BGoodForGoodSake
Ark~Magic wrote:in my opinion, religion is the purest and oldest of all sciences. It is concerned with the "Know Why". It is a purpose thing.
Science is a Cult. It is so focused on the "Know How". It overlooks the "Know Why" completely.
The reason is obvious. You can not find purpose in the material world (the world of science). Asking for it would mean an admision of the existence of the divine. You can not act like you are God and at the same time believe in Him.
That is one of the most awesome quotes ever.
Would it be better to be humble and say "I don't know" than to claim to have all the answers?
Science is a tool not a tome of answers. How can you compare it to Christianity, they are not in opposition.
Re: RE:
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:45 pm
by Byblos
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Science is a tool not a tome of answers. How can you compare it to Christianity, they are not in opposition.
And that would be the second best quote.
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:30 pm
by sandy_mcd
ncheropoulos wrote:... religion is the purest and oldest of all sciences. It is concerned with the "Know Why". It is a purpose thing.
Science is ... so focused on the "Know How". It overlooks the "Know Why" completely.
The reason is obvious. You can not find purpose in the material world (the world of science). ...
Precisely. As you say, purpose cannot be found in the material world, which is all science deals with. [Neither does soccer, which inspires fanatics worldwide, contributing to at least one war - the Soccer War of 1969.] Religion does deal with the spiritual. This makes religion different from soccer and science. Religion is neither a sport nor a science. [Mathematics is not a science either.]
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:09 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.'1
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:10 pm
by Cougar
There are no scientific studies that are perfect. There is always uncertainty in measurements, experimental design, etc. but we can minimize this uncertainty as much as possible by controlling certain variables where appropriate. To include the supernatural within science would be completely counterintuitive to scientific theory because there is absolutely no way of 1) observing it and 2) controlling for any type of error. A scientific study to include supernatural causes in its design would be full of unmeasurable uncertainty and would basically be the opposite of science. The scientist to study it, also, would be committing career suicide. There is currently no way to include any supernatural observations in science, therefore it is left out, as it should be.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 7:11 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behaviour of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.'1
Seems to remain true...
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:22 pm
by Cougar
I really don't think the majority of scientists are scientists because they want to "see how far they can go"... usually it is because they want to make discoveries to enhance quality of life or knowledge for everyone, including you. I would be careful not to downplay scientists' work... they historically have improved our knowledge of our surroundings and life in general. No one would be in school, we wouldn't be having these debates without their contributions.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:48 pm
by Believer
Cougar wrote:I really don't think the majority of scientists are scientists because they want to "see how far they can go"... usually it is because they want to make discoveries to enhance quality of life or knowledge for everyone, including you.
Once again, your atheist opinion. Have you talked with each and every one of these scientists cougar to confirm what you believe of them, or as I said, just asserting your opinion?
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:34 pm
by Cougar
What does my post have anything to do with atheism?
Well, I am a scientist and I have worked with scientists for a while now and I have yet to have a religious discussion with any of them to talk about their "wanting to see how far they can go" or "what limits they can push". Most scientists want to fix a problem or, like I said, improve life in some way. Are you against developments in medical fields, increasing gas mileage in cars, or safer places for our kids to go to school? I am guessing not, and all of these things can be and have been done by scientists. Maybe you should restate your point, Believer, I am not sure if I understand what you are trying to say, other than call me an atheist for no reason.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:01 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Cougar wrote:I really don't think the majority of scientists are scientists because they want to "see how far they can go"... usually it is because they want to make discoveries to enhance quality of life or knowledge for everyone, including you. I would be careful not to downplay scientists' work... they historically have improved our knowledge of our surroundings and life in general. No one would be in school, we wouldn't be having these debates without their contributions.
Me neither, why are you bringing that up?