Mistrust of Science - Evolution vs Creationism in the classroom

Fawlty Elizabeth said:
Gravity's strength being inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two objects isn't really a "faith" thing, mate. Turns out we can calculate that shit. In a child's classroom. It's fucking wild, yo.
Click to expand...
It is though. It can't really be quantified with certainty. One would have to be able to alter and verify the density of planets size and their position in order to absolutely verify it

Just the same way evolution relies on dating things with astronomical time scales that there is no control to use as verification of said time scale.
 
keepemup said:
It is though. It can't really be quantified with certainty. One would have to be able to alter and verify the density of planets size and their position in order to absolutely verify it

Just the same way evolution relies on dating things with astronomical time scales that there is no control to use as verification of said time scale.
Click to expand...

This is the theory of evolution in a nut shell. Its all pretense. They make a claim or present a piece of evidence that they cannot verify. Yet they present it as scientificly proven. When in reality all they've done is simply get enough other scientists to sign on to this claim in order to create a consensus around it. They then treat that consensus as scientific proof on which they create more unverified claims. This is what their "mountain" of evidence consists of.
 
all caps said:
Im not trying to nor interested in changing anyones opinion. Youre welcome to believe whatever you want.

Its you guys that are hell bent on forcing you religion on everyone.
Click to expand...

Do you have a general lack of education on the subject or do you just not know what the word "religion" means?
 
TheComebackKid said:
This is the theory of evolution in a nut shell. Its all pretense. They make a claim or present a piece of evidence that they cannot verify. Yet they present it as scientificly proven. When in reality all they've done is simply get enough other scientists to sign on to this claim in order to create a consensus around it. They then treat that consensus as scientific proof on which they create more unverified claims. This is what their "mountain" of evidence consists of.
Click to expand...
that post doesn't even make sense. but its rich coming from the "the fallen angels did it" guy
 
TheComebackKid said:
This is the theory of evolution in a nut shell. Its all pretense. They make a claim or present a piece of evidence that they cannot verify. Yet they present it as scientificly proven. When in reality all they've done is simply get enough other scientists to sign on to this claim in order to create a consensus around it. They then treat that consensus as scientific proof on which they create more unverified claims. This is what their "mountain" of evidence consists of.
Click to expand...

I love reading things like that from uneducated people that instead want people to believe in something that is entirely without evidence. Every argument against science hits many times harder on religion, especially as the scientific method means that one is open to new evidence that could change things while religions tend to say that they have the pure truth.
 
Voodoo_Child906 said:
Like you I think there is a problem or at least a potential for corruption in any human endeavor where there's a power dynamic and/or monetary incentives. Whether it be Police, Scientists, Clergy, Politicians, Fortune 500 companies etc. However, there is also a problem with cynicism with the general public. There is no theory or opinion that is "True" and the scientific community has been wrong about a lot of things in the past, but doubting the consensus conclusions of hundreds of Scientists because you believe they all are corrupt seems unreasonable to me.
Click to expand...

Not only the general public but even scientists don't know who is a fraud until they find out who falsified data in their research papers. I can totally understand the distrust.
 
You guys have to define what "God" is because there is nothing in the laws of physics that precludes the existence of a Creator, you can't use science to argue against the notion of God it doesn't work that way.
 
Arguing against evolution.

5710f15f0e31c59402c3db6e1ef9bcfe.jpg


<{Heymansnicker}>
 
Squarechoke said:
I love reading things like that from uneducated people that instead want people to believe in something that is entirely without evidence. Every argument against science hits many times harder on religion, especially as the scientific method means that one is open to new evidence that could change things while religions tend to say that they have the pure truth.
Click to expand...

Im not religious tho
 
TheComebackKid said:
Angels that kept not their first estate
Click to expand...
When computers become as intelligent as human beings in the next ~10 years, how will you rectify this materialist basis for consciousness and intelligence with your faith that a non material "soul" is what generates our consciousness?
 
Regal Boy said:
When computers become as intelligent as human beings in the next ~10 years, how will you rectify this materialist basis for consciousness and intelligence with your faith that a non material "soul" is what generates our consciousness?
Click to expand...

Why would the development of artificial intelligence negate the concept of human consciousness? And why are you celebrating the notion that you have no soul, no conscious, and no free will? That would mean that "you" doesn't actually exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,982
Messages
58,474,487
Members
176,048
Latest member
gibberish

Share this page

Back
Top