Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

I can turn you atheist/agnostic

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 14151617>
Author
Da Hui View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Guested, 9/13 Inappropiate post content

Joined: 06 August 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8442
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Da Hui Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 1:51pm
God invented Science.
Back to Top
Susan Storm View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Shot at Love Contestant

Joined: 13 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Susan Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 1:54pm

Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:

Well, Pasteur's experiment actually was to determine whether micro-organisms. would appear in broth, using several different controls. Close enough though, I guess...

I'll take your word for it - it's been a while...  :)

Quote I agree that his results (and the fact that we've never seen it happen), isn't absolute proof that it never happened. However, since we can't prove it ever did happen and the mass of research says it can't, I abbreviate that to "Spontaneous generation does not occur."

That would be a bold but rational statement - but to state that Pasteur proved that would be flat out incorrect.

Quote Therefore, the belief that life formed from nothing has approximately the same scientific weight as a god does.
We've never seen it happen, there's no proof that it has ever happened, yet it is still believed as a "working hypothesis."

Close enough.

Quote God could also be considered a "working hypothesis" under those guidelines.

Absolutely.  Obviously.

Quote I'm more of a believer that God exists, and science is just a better explanation of everything that he created than a 2,000+ year old book that has been translated incorrectly multiple times.

A perfectly legitimate combination of rational and non-rational beliefs.

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Back to Top
Skillet42565 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Actuarry itís Skirret

Joined: 25 December 2004
Location: Liechtenstein
Status: Offline
Points: 9556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skillet42565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 2:04pm
I like the way Bunkered put it.
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by Bunkered Bunkered wrote:

Well, Pasteur's experiment actually was to determine whether micro-organisms. would appear in broth, using several different controls. Close enough though, I guess...

I agree that his results (and the fact that we've never seen it happen), isn't absolute proof that it never happened. However, since we can't prove it ever did happen and the mass of research says it can't, I abbreviate that to "Spontaneous generation does not occur."

Therefore, the belief that life formed from nothing has approximately the same scientific weight as a god does.
We've never seen it happen, there's no proof that it has ever happened, yet it is still believed as a "working hypothesis."
God could also be considered a "working hypothesis" under those guidelines.

The issue is, people take the Bible extremely literally, when it is quite obviously not the literal word of God (if such a god exists). Any time anything goes against what "God" says, they get all pissed off because they don't realize that the Bible is really just written by people.
I'm more of a believer that God exists, and science is just a better explanation of everything that he created than a 2,000+ year old book that has been translated incorrectly multiple times.


Exactly, and if put in a Christian sense than I will explain it this way:

1)God is said to speak to us through scripture and nature.

2)The bible basically covers the scripture side but then there is nature.

3) Science is the interpretation by humans of our surroundings. Those surroundings are nature.

IMO, a christian could understand science as another interpretation of how god speaks to us.

Then again, I'm not a Christian.
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 5:17pm
I believe that it wasn't long ago that scientists have found a way to create the precursors to life in a lab. They set the conditions to what is thought to be early earth, and applied some electricity to what they had in the container. It didn't create a new organism, but rather arranged some of the parts to be more suitable for the first life to happen.

It's not exactly spontaneous, but scientists are working out how primordial soup and early earth's weather could have created life. It wont be long until we have found many ways life could have happened on its own.

They're also on the way to creating life in labs that have nothing to do with the way early earth was.

The knowledge is coming, people trying to hold it back or hide it is what will keep people in doubt.
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 5:33pm
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Online
Points: 4028
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 6:04pm
Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Ok, Kayback, you are right.† Science is forever backtracking and proving itself wrong.



(Whole bunch of irrelivent garbage)


Ha ha. Veeery funny.

I will admit the word "All" was badly placed in my post, I should have used the word "many".

There is harly any field of study that you can mention that hasn't had a turn around or a drastic change in understanding that invalidates something the same field hadn't held up as fact earlier though.

Tolgak I'm not saying it is impossible. All I am saying is at the moment we don't know everything. And the more we look into things, the more we find we didn't know before we looked there. Is it so impossible to believe there might be some all powerful force making the rules and making sure they are in place?

And is it so hard to believe that this force is sentient?

There are plenty of things that are in the bible and have scientific theory or evidence to back it up.

Genisis ? Let there be light vs Big Bang. Whats the difference? No one knows what caused the universe to be. Some believe it just happened, other believe it was created. There is BELIEF on both sides of the fence.

God creating the animals and the human race vs Evolution. Whats the difference if the force that started evolution was God. No one can say what caused life to originate on this planet, and it happened suprisingly soon after the planet is thought to have been formed. Again, there is no evidence to support a creator inspired evolution or a random accident, both sides have to believe their point of view is right.

Personally I'm not the most religious person on the planet, but I prefer having the thought that there was some sort of thought put into my existence instead of the thought that if anything in the universe differed by even one percent, we wouldn't be here.

Unlike what Susan was trying to say, even if you don't understand the theory behind something does it mean it won't work.

Obviously our cars won't stop working, nor will the internet dissapear, or my gun not fire. But again these are all things that we THINK we have a handle on. Just like people thought they had a handle on things like atoms and protons and the like.

Now we know about Quarks and Gluons. I seriously doubt we will ever prove something as grossly macro as an internal combustion engine wrong, but more in depth and better understandings of the burn pattern, and the interaction of the molecules will deepen our knowledge, and possibly open new avenues of understanding which will change how the engines work for ultimate fuel efficiency. Obviously I have no idea what future science will reveal, so I can't give a real example of how something could be revealed that changes how we think an engine works. It could be something like anti gluons swapping from one particle's protons during a reaction which liberates the thermal energy. ( a pretty crap example I know, but the best out of the ordinary I could come up with)

People are still trying to figure out Ionic, Covalent and metallic bonds, not to mention Atomic forces. Similar to gravity they are forces that exist, and can be measured to a degree, but not duplicated.

Quote Susan
Science is a method of gathering information and knowledge. That's all. It is by far the most effective means of doing so we have ever conceived, and is responsible for the vast majority of knowledge we have, but it is still just a method.

Religion/faith is a fundamentally non-rational decision-making process.    And that's fine - there is nothing wrong with the occasional non-rational decision-making.

Where I have a beef is when people misinterpret or misunderstand science because of some perceived conflict with religious beliefs.

If you non-rationally believe that god created Eve from Adam's rib, for instance, that's fine. What's not fine is when you, motivated by this belief, start incorrectly attacking biological science that you deem incompatible with your belief. If you want to attack biology, go nuts - biologists do it all the time. But do so honestly and well-informed.

Scientists have spent hundreds or thousands of years developing the body of knowledge we have today. They deserve better than having people casually dismiss their findings out of ignorance because they don't like the results.


I couldn't agree with you more on most of these points.

Religion itself isn't to blame, it's the fanatical arms of religion that has the anti science stance. It's taking work that was "published" over 2000 years ago and they claim it's the "word of God". It isn't. Unless there is an original copy with God's fax number or E-mail address as the originator, it has to be a person's interpretation of what they think the "word of God" is. The problem comes in when fanatical religions hold these pubications as the end all and be all.

Like I said earlier, they were good survival handbooks. However the limiting factor comes when people claim they can't be added to, or taken away from. But those are only fundamentalist.

I disagree with the statement that "It pointedly ignores available evidence when reaching its conclusion." HOW is it ignoring available evidence when its reaching the conclusion, especially when things like science haven't reached the limit of evidence yet? Or reached all the conclusions.

I do agree that there are people who operate within the religion who's best interest is served by ignoring science, or even trying to refute it. However that it the person's fault, not the religion's.

KBK

Bah, I just saw Bunkered's post on the last page, and he said what I've been trying to say in 5 pages, in 5 lines.

/me shakes his fist.

KBK


Edited by Kayback - 11 December 2007 at 6:10pm
Back to Top
Gatyr View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Strike 1 - Begging for strikes

Joined: 06 July 2003
Location: Austin, Tx
Status: Offline
Points: 10299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gatyr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 6:09pm

Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:

I will admit the word "All" was badly placed in my post, I should have used the word "many".

There is harly any field of study that you can mention that hasn't had a turn around or a drastic change in understanding that invalidates something the same field hadn't held up as fact earlier though.

You're completely missing the point of new scientific discoveries and the scientific method.

I don't know how to say it any clearer than has already been said, but:

New discoveries don't invalidate old ones, they modify our knowledge of that particular part of science.

There are a very select few instances where the science/theory was proven completely wrong, but don't be so silly as to connect those rare happenings as a part of all science.

Back to Top
Susan Storm View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Shot at Love Contestant

Joined: 13 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Susan Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 10:10pm

Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:

There is harly any field of study that you can mention that hasn't had a turn around or a drastic change in understanding that invalidates something the same field hadn't held up as fact earlier though.

You keep saying that, but your only example is a non-scientific belief from hundreds of years ago.  Please provide some more relevant recent specifics.

But allow me to drill down further. 

Science basically has two components:  Data and theory.  We collect data, formulate a potential theory to explain the data, and then collect some more data to test the potential theory.  When a potential theory survives a bunch of tests and matches a bunch of data, we promote it to "Theory".  It still gets tested all the time, but we now consider it reliable enough to proceed on.

Now, the data itself is hardly ever "proven wrong".  There are instances of fraud, of course, and there are frequently refinements in collection and measurement technology and technique, but the collected data itself basically lives forever.  Some data might be consider more or less reliable and weighted accordingly, but data is just data.

Then there are theories and potential theories.  Potential theories (sometimes called hypotheses) are proven wrong all the time.  That's the "potential" part.  Now, scientists love to brag about their discoveries to the press, and we are forever reading in the papers about some scientist that has "proven" something or other.  Most of the time, they are reporting what is actually a small piece of data supporting a potential theory - far from "proven".  "Proven" doesn't happen overnight, but is a cumulative effect.

By the time something is considered "proven" scientifically, it is based on a mountain of well-considered data and well-tested theories.  And when something reaches this level, it is very, very rarely shown to be flat out wrong.  Theories that reach this level are tweaked and modified to incorporate new data, but it is a very rare day when a well-established scientific theory is disproven.

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Back to Top
sporx View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 July 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5619
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sporx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 10:41pm
oh my <poopy>. is this thread not locked yet!!??

Edited by Rambino - 12 December 2007 at 10:41am
Back to Top
Skillet42565 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Actuarry itís Skirret

Joined: 25 December 2004
Location: Liechtenstein
Status: Offline
Points: 9556
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Skillet42565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 10:48pm
Obviously not.
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 10:51pm
Originally posted by sporx sporx wrote:

oh my <poopy>. is this thread not locked yet!!??
I haven't seen anything in this thread worthy of getting it locked yet.


Edited by Rambino - 12 December 2007 at 10:41am
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2007 at 11:03pm
Except sporx swearing.

That is strikable for both of you.

I suggest you edit.
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2007 at 2:11am
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Except sporx swearing.

That is strikable for both of you.

I suggest you edit.


I'm pretty sure you can say effing, you just can't dodge the filter, or use an obvious or ****.

Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2007 at 2:15am
Not yet sporx, but it will if you keep posting f-bombs. So by all means, please continue.
Back to Top
Rambino View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
I am even less fun in person

Joined: 15 August 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 16593
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rambino Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2007 at 10:42am

Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:


I'm pretty sure you can say effing, you just can't dodge the filter, or use an obvious or ****.

"effing" and derivatives ARE filter dodges.  If your intent is obvious, then clever abbreviations don't make a difference.

Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2007 at 1:59pm
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
White o Light View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Guested. blatant pornographic post

Joined: 12 June 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2772
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote White o Light Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2007 at 5:51pm
Originally posted by Benjichang Benjichang wrote:

Originally posted by sporx sporx wrote:

oh my <poopy>. is this thread not locked yet!!??
I haven't seen anything in this thread worthy of getting it locked yet.


POST MORE TRASH SPORX
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2007 at 9:32pm
So you like it when she types dirty eh?
Back to Top
sporx View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 July 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5619
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sporx Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 December 2007 at 11:29pm
arew you serious? i got a strike for that!? c'mon rambino, i have "interwebas terrettes". BAM so I can't GOAT LLAMA really help myself. BASEBALL BAT. so don't be hatin'. PILLOW FLUFF
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 14151617>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.