|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 7:49:49 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm thinking KT was actually Essentialsaltes under a pseudonym,
Nah, I appreciate an occasional streak of mellowness in essentialsaltes. I've yet to see anything but acrid dogmatism with the other. Say DanJ, under which pseudonym do you suspect I post alternatively?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 7:50:32 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Nah, I appreciate an occasional streak of mellowness in essentialsaltes. I've yet to see anything but acrid dogmatism with the other. Say DanJ, under which pseudonym do you suspect I post alternatively?
I've always suspected you were Veritas.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 7:56:55 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Oh, drat, my cover is blown! But you gotta admit I can carry on some impressive auto-dialogue.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/17/2008 9:32:32 PM
|
|
|
cih92
Posts: 127
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Looking at the evidence in an unbiased manner is a part of science. If you mean by "looking at the evidece" merely the observation, recording, and collection of data, I would completely agree. However, the interpretation, understanding, and conclusions drawn from that data can never be "in a 100% unbiased manner"! Do you see the difference or did I misunderstand your statement, cih92?
You are correct. There is no way that scientists can look at the evidence in a 100% unbiased manner.
Telling the truth about the scientific evidence is a part of science and this is an ethical norm.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 9:52:24 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Nah, I appreciate an occasional streak of mellowness in essentialsaltes. I've yet to see anything but acrid dogmatism with the other. Say DanJ, under which pseudonym do you suspect I post alternatively?
I've always suspected you were Veritas.
You mean we (uh.. I) didn't have everyone fooled?
I don't have multiple personalities. -- And neither do I!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 10:11:17 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanJames
I'm thinking KT was actually Essentialsaltes under a pseudonym, trying to get us riled up with sophomoric arguments and copy-paste statements from Talk Origins. Notice how you never see the two of them in the same place at the same time? I'm on to you ES.
As fond as I am of dead-pan humor, I would have appreciated a smiley at the end of that.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 10:32:36 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Telling the truth about the scientific evidence is a part of science and this is an ethical norm. In an attempt to return to some similance of sanity (sorry about sidetracking your thread, Jack) this concept deserves further consideration. At what point does "telling the truth about scientific evidence" cross over from merely objective statement of factual data to the analysis or discussion of said data with all its inherent assumptions, presuppositions, and worldview biases? Is not this understanding of science as a worldview influenced discipline inherent in the OP, even by those practitioners of "conventional" science?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 1:15:37 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Telling the truth about the scientific evidence is a part of science and this is an ethical norm. In an attempt to return to some similance of sanity (sorry about sidetracking your thread, Jack) this concept deserves further consideration. At what point does "telling the truth about scientific evidence" cross over from merely objective statement of factual data to the analysis or discussion of said data with all its inherent assumptions, presuppositions, and worldview biases? Is not this understanding of science as a worldview influenced discipline inherent in the OP, even by those practitioners of "conventional" science?
If there were on scientists, would there still be science? Christian apologetics think so. They have hijacked the scientific method, a process they had no part in creating, and claim their bazaar and warped interpretation is more valid than that of it's creators.
Edit: 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 1:20:10 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7781
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
If there were on scientists, would there still be science? Christian apologetics think so. They have hijacked the scientific method, a process they had no part in creating, and claim their bazaar and warped interpretation is more valid than that of it's creators.
I think you better check your history; many if not most of the first scientists were Christians, many of them writing theology as well as science.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 2:49:51 PM
|
|
|
PureLight
Posts: 195
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline
|
First time commenter (no, that's a lie, I laughed at the LHC web cam), long time reader. Just saying that I love you people and the banter here AND the serious stuff is incredibly interesting to read.
As a point of interest, to me it seems that it'd be impossible to impose some worldview interpretation as while they may make the point of being unbiased, that's the beauty(?) of biases, we're usually unaware of them and every one's prone to it.
Analysis of the information, well, the information mostly talked about here anyways, would lead to worldview expansion as well. Not a change in one, but usually just reinforces the one they have. Talking about truth in evidence is pointless considering both sides in this area of the forum are stalwartly holding to their beliefs for their own fine reasons. Of course, I believe the evidence for the Christian worldview is the most compelling and would say that would be the 'truth' that is spoken by any evidence, regardless of how we interpret it. An atheist or agnostic scientist who hasn't accepted the truth of Jesus Christ (yes, this is bad rhetoric but my belief trumps my caring for good form) will see the worldview they have spoken of by the evidence.
Until God explains it to us, all "truth" of the evidence is subjective.
And wouldn't the first scientists be anyone who tested anything in the interest of understanding it better or understanding it at all? Another thing, wouldn't any person who uses the scientific method on something be a scientist? Semantics. =/
i laughed hardcore at the smiley talk.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 3:07:07 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:KaseyTomquote:
If there were on scientists, would there still be science? Christian apologetics think so. They have hijacked the scientific method, a process they had no part in creating, and claim their bazaar and warped interpretation is more valid than that of it's creators.
Where do you get this nonsense?
Not only are the fathers of almost every scientific field Christian, but the basic concept that makes science possible is a Christian concept. I.e. God created an orderly universe.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 3:52:24 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3140
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
As a point of interest, to me it seems that it'd be impossible to impose some worldview interpretation as while they may make the point of being unbiased, that's the beauty(?) of biases, we're usually unaware of them and every one's prone to it. Good thoughts, PureLight. But don't you think that one of the great attributes of the Christian worldview is that we truly do know our bias is right? 1 Cor 2:12-16
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 4:04:22 PM
|
|
|
PureLight
Posts: 195
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline
|
Well, yeah, we're open about it I dare say. Truly a rock to stand upon.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 4:23:04 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
If there were on scientists, would there still be science? Christian apologetics think so. They have hijacked the scientific method, a process they had no part in creating, and claim their bazaar and warped interpretation is more valid than that of it's creators.
I think you better check your history; many if not most of the first scientists were Christians, many of them writing theology as well as science.
I'm pretty sure the first scientists lived long before Christ.
However, my point was Christian apologetics pick and choose the aspects of the scientific method that meets their needs and ignore requirements they can't meet by simply attributing it to the will of God. This, mixed with a lot of scientific sounding gobbledygook validates the beliefs of YECers and the like. What worse, it confuses school administrators and teachers into attempting to include this non-science into a science curriculums.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 4:31:11 PM
|
|
|
PureLight
Posts: 195
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline
|
I've seen Christian apologetics that do nothing to support YEC. Creation, sure but not always YE. Spare the generalization please.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 5:13:56 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:KaseyTomquote:
I'm pretty sure the first scientists lived long before Christ.
Is that desperation showing or are you actually that ignorant of the issue?
quote:
This, mixed with a lot of scientific sounding gobbledygook validates the beliefs of YECers and the like.
Please provide your materialistic explanation for the origin of the universe that isn’t just a lot of scientific sounding gobbledygook designed to validate your beliefs. EVERY materialistic explanation I have seen is just that.
If that is too difficult then try the origin of life. That should at least be good for a laugh.
quote:
What worse, it confuses school administrators and teachers into attempting to include this non-science into a science curriculums.
What is truly worse is the materialistic dogma currently being force-fed to school kids in the guise of science.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 7:34:34 PM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 679
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
Not only are the fathers of almost every scientific field Christian, but the basic concept that makes science possible is a Christian concept. I.e. God created an orderly universe.
You through the word "almost" in there for good measure no doubt. But actually, you'd be hard pressed to find a single field of science that was not started by a Christian Creationist.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 7:48:33 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:DanJamesquote:
You through the word "almost" in there for good measure no doubt.
I just didn’t want the supporters of pseudo-science to feel left out.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 10:25:22 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:KaseyTomquote:
I'm pretty sure the first scientists lived long before Christ.
Is that desperation showing or are you actually that ignorant of the issue?
quote:
This, mixed with a lot of scientific sounding gobbledygook validates the beliefs of YECers and the like.
Please provide your materialistic explanation for the origin of the universe that isn’t just a lot of scientific sounding gobbledygook designed to validate your beliefs. EVERY materialistic explanation I have seen is just that.
If that is too difficult then try the origin of life. That should at least be good for a laugh.
quote:
What worse, it confuses school administrators and teachers into attempting to include this non-science into a science curriculums.
What is truly worse is the materialistic dogma currently being force-fed to school kids in the guise of science.
Is that desperation showing or are you actually that ignorant of the issue?
You never heard of Socrates, Archenemies, et al. ?
http://www.livius.org/gi-gr/greeks/scientists.html
How about the Islamic golden age (8-9th Cen AD) when Baghdad was the center of learning and knowledge.
Early Egyptian astronomy?
Please provide your materialistic explanation for the origin of the universe that isn’t just a lot of scientific sounding gobbledygook designed to validate your beliefs.
Why would theoretical physicist care about validating my beliefs? It is true science cannot describe T(ime)=0, but they do have mathematical models describing T=0.01x1000 (or some number like that). Are you asking me to describe this mathematical model? OK you got me one that one.
If that is too difficult then try the origin of life.
Science does not claim to know the origin of life. It does have a theory that explains how primitive life evolved to become the life we know today.
What science can say, with absolute certainty, is that there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that life, the earth, and the universe have been around for BILLIONS of years.
What is truly worse is the materialistic dogma currently being force-fed to school kids in the guise of science.
What your saying is that science is being force-fed to school kids in the guise of science.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/18/2008 10:32:37 PM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PureLight
I've seen Christian apologetics that do nothing to support YEC. Creation, sure but not always YE. Spare the generalization please.
The most influential purveyors of apologetics is AinG.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 12:18:56 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
quote:
ORIGINAL: PureLight
I've seen Christian apologetics that do nothing to support YEC. Creation, sure but not always YE. Spare the generalization please.
The most influential purveyors of apologetics is AinG.
Please. Christian apologetics existed for centuries before the existence of the intertubes. AiG only wishes it were as influential as even the Narnia books.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 12:26:37 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KaseyTom
You never heard of Socrates, Archenemies, et al. ?
Archenemies? What will the spellchecker think of next?
Although I bow to no one in my admiration of the Greeks, I do think that science (as distinct from philosophy) really only got its start around the time of Galileo. Aristotle (in)famously stated, from the safety of his armchair or his stoa or whatever he had, that women had fewer teeth than men, without ever bothering to check Mrs. Aristotle's mouth. The concept of 'experiment' and the other appurtenances of science were not very well developed among the Greeks.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 1:02:48 AM
|
|
|
KaseyTom
Posts: 163
Joined: 9/12/2008
Status: offline
|
So do you folks think those areas of science that do not contradict the OT are as flawed as those that do?
If not, why?
< Message edited by KaseyTom -- 9/19/2008 9:59:54 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Science only contributes atheism? - 9/19/2008 10:32:18 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 919
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:ktquote:
You never heard of Socrates, Archenemies, et al. ?
I am aware of a Greek philosopher named Socrates. Please enlighten me. Which field of modern science did Socrates father?
Of course your other example makes your position much more clear.
“ArchEnemies is a comic book mini-series put out by Dark Horse Comics from April 05, 2006 until July 05, 2006.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArchEnemies
Your view of science does seem to have come from a comic book.
quote:
quote:
Please provide your materialistic explanation for the origin of the universe that isn’t just a lot of scientific sounding gobbledygook designed to validate your beliefs.
Why would theoretical physicist care about validating my beliefs?
Thanks for verifying that all you have is gobbledygook. But that begs the question. What makes your gobbledygook acceptable as science?
quote:
Science does not claim to know the origin of life. It does have a theory that explains how primitive life evolved to become the life we know today.
Isn’t that theory supposed to be scientific? That’s the lie that is being pawned off on school kids. TOE is even less scientific than Dark Horse Comics.
quote:
What science can say, with absolute certainty, is that there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that life, the earth, and the universe have been around for BILLIONS of years.
Absolute certainty? ROFLOL!
quote:
What your saying is that science is being force-fed to school kids in the guise of science.
Nope. I know the difference between dogma and science. You obviously don’t.
You even admitted “Science does not claim to know the origin of life.” School kids are taught that life arose via abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is NOT science, but rather it is materialist DOGMA being forced on school kids in the GUISE of sience.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
