Mistrust of Science - Evolution vs Creationism in the classroom

[The Stoat]

That wasn't me that said that. How did you quote the wrong person?

my bad voodoo

 

[ShinkanPo]

Um. I'm pretty sure you are a bible-thumper which leaves you without a leg to stand on when it comes to commenting about who basis their worldview on an appeal to authority.

 

[Grenz]

Sorry guys but evolution is a fairy tale. Its also a racist theory.

Evolution is what gave rise to the eugenics movement. The theory inevitably leads to racial hiearchies that put so called white people on top.

Also, it's not real.

You started out pretty strong here, especially impressed with how you brought race into it, very apropos.

The Scriptures are, for the most part, a literal account of history.

This is where it goes off the rails. You barely got out of first gear and jumped straight into double digit page count thread material.

The Bible should be taught in science class, history class, philosophy, sociology, civics, and the arts.

I really like this as a jumping off point for some of your more unorthodox stuff, like your ideas on celestial bodies, but we usually don't reach this point until we're past the page 50 mark.

Ease them into it, slow and steady....

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Oh man, a good ol' fashioned evolution vs creation thread. This takes me back.

Ya 50 pages of Ripskater and TCK arguing with Biology Phd's (I believe we had one or two) on RNA sequencing... That was a fucking site to see!

 

[Damien Karras]

Science is basically observation. You look at something and you draw conclusions. No one observed creation, no one was there except the Creator. Science can say nothing about origins. Science can say nothing about how the universe came into existence because no one was there.

If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one was there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[The Stoat]

If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and no one was there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yes, we can set up our own experiment. Cut a tree to where it's about ready to fall. Have a trail cam with a microphone to record the sound with no one there to hear it fall. It's a repeatable and observable experiment.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Yes, we can set up our own experiment. Cut a tree to where it's about ready to fall. Have a trail cam with a microphone to record the sound with no one there to hear it fall. It's a repeatable and observable experiment.

Great, and if I find a tree that fell without anyone there to hear or record it can I conclude it made a sound?

 

[Octavian]

Why can't one believe in god but also believe in science and reject the dogmatic, made up bullshit in the bible?

 

[Hadron90]

Science doesn't really have to explain an origin story if the universe or "something" is infinite.

Sounds like you don't understand your "creator"...

There is no reason to believe the universe is infinite.

 

[Regal Boy]

Yes, we can set up our own experiment. Cut a tree to where it's about ready to fall. Have a trail cam with a microphone to record the sound with no one there to hear it fall. It's a repeatable and observable experiment.

The camera is an observer.

 

[Regal Boy]

Why can't one believe in god but also believe in science and reject the dogmatic, made up bullshit in the bible?

They can, there are many rigorous and consistent ontologies that are that.

 

[Hadron90]

The truth about science is that we are basically toddlers trying to get the shaped blocks to fit in the right holes, and failing miserably at it. Science as a method as a lot of merit, but man have we managed to fuck it up big time.

 

[Hadron90]

Yes, we can set up our own experiment. Cut a tree to where it's about ready to fall. Have a trail cam with a microphone to record the sound with no one there to hear it fall. It's a repeatable and observable experiment.

That only proves that trees make sounds when recorded.

 

[The Stoat]

Why can't one believe in god but also believe in science and reject the dogmatic, made up bullshit in the bible?

We believe what we believe I guess.

 

[BEER]

Great, and if I find a tree that fell without anyone there to hear or record it can I conclude it made a sound?

Yes.

Unless you believe that sound only exists when there is a method of observation, and that seems silly.

 

[Regal Boy]

The Materialist/Physicalist ontology seems very solid with a lot of evidence to me. If you believe the Big Bang was a Creation event and God created the universe at the Big Bang I completely understand that, I don't know what I think about that.

But Materialism is very compelling as an ontology to me. TBH I don't see how one could deny it, Materialism just seems right. If there is a God and the God created the universe, it seems to have done it materially, in a way that is not what the bible depicts.

 

[Hadron90]

The Materialist/Physicalist ontology seems very solid with a lot of evidence to me. If you believe the Big Bang was a Creation event and God created the universe at the Big Bang I completely understand that, I don't know what I think about that.

But Materialism is very compelling as an ontology to me. TBH I don't see how one could deny it, Materialism just seems right. If there is a God and the God created the universe, it seems to have done it materially, in a way that is not what the bible depicts.

Why does materialism seem right to you? Despite the best efforts of the greatest minds of all the world's history, science and math still utterly fail to describe the universe. At best, you have made a very crude model, but noone is anywhere near the truth.

 

[Regal Boy]

Why does materialism seem right to you? Despite the best efforts of the greatest minds of all the world's history, science and math still utterly fail to describe the universe. At best, you have made a very crude model, but noone is anywhere near the truth.

What do you mean by "utterly fail to describe the universe"? We can completely deterministically describe the motion of bodies, as well as the evolution of the wave function of every particle that exists.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Yes.

Unless you believe that sound only exists when there is a method of observation, and that seems silly.

If you define sound as a neurological response to stimulus then you do need an observer with a brain to have sound, but that's really beside the point I was making. A user stated that we don't "know" what happened early on in the universe because we weren't there. I was just stating that we didn't have to be as we use evidence and the scientific method when an observer/witness isn't present.

 

[ocean size]

Think of it another way. You have a television. Just imagine that your television assembled itself together, put itself in a box with all of the capabilities that it has. The remote also assembled itself together compatibly with the television so that you could operate it the way you do. Anyone that tried to advocate this would be fit for a mental institution. There is no proof of macro evolution.

lol just stop with the facile strawman analogies. You know that's disingenuous- or maybe you don't know why, in which case you don't at all understand the theory you are wholesale criticising.

Despite the best efforts of the greatest minds of all the world's history, science and math still utterly fail to describe the universe. At best, you have made a very crude model, but noone is anywhere near the truth.

Out of curiosity, if you had to wager would you say that science and math are getting closer to the truth or getting further away from the truth of the nature of the universe over time?