It's also impossible to logically determine why (not how) gravity works the way it does or why approaching the speed of light causes relative time to appear to slow down, it's also impossible to go back in time and prove that carbon dating is not dynamic and thus could be potentially extremely different from what it is now, because the practice is obviously younger than a millenium. What is your point?
Just because you do not know why does not mean you can disprove it.
How does this have anything to do with what I just said? My issue is not the why. "Why" is, for most subjects, not that important, as most queries of functionality are not "why", but "how" (i.e. "Why does it work that way" almost always boils down to "how do the individual pieces work". No, my issues are purely logical in nature.
Define "science", I don't see too many people trying to disprove the laws of physics. >_>
Science (n): systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
And keep in mind, I'm talking about science, and it's best friend
logical thinking. I hold them to be virtually the same, and at least for the course of this discussion, you can equate them, as science is nothing but applied logic.
If you're referring to just the shunning of evolution in particular, then that's different. I don't consider it a "science" because you can't go back in time, live millions of years, and come back and prove that the animals changed over time to the degree that they did. You can't directly observe it, so it should be considered a concept.
Oh? What's this? Slapping every historian, archeologist, and biologist in the face?
Just because it cannot be observed does not mean it is not science. But let's assume you're right-we can ignore something as unscientific because it's unobservable. The theory of evolution
includes modern-day evolution. Which
can actively be observed. Seriously, in test environments, you can
actively observe evolution. And yes, the creationists oppose
this too.
Now before you go and say that this is stupid logic, think about it for a moment, does mutating the gene of an animal turn it into an entirely "new" animal? (Well, not yet anyway)
At the rate that a successful mutation occurs, and the length of time it takes for it to be distributed through a population, I'd think that 2-5 million of years would be
not enough time. Also, I also feel that there are several animals who's existance prevents me from believing in evolution. I've mentioned the issue with bats before (if the webbing grew first, the intermediate animal wouldn't be able to dig, and would be helpless, if the fingers grew long first, it would have a hard time moving and would be helpless, if they grew at the same time, bats wouldn't exist, because it would have difficulty moving, climbing, walking, or catching food.), but there are plenty of other oddities out there. Why would an intermediate Narwhal find a tooth sticking part of the way through it's
facial flesh as sexually attractive or at least a pain or deterent? Why would it grow forward in the first place? Why is it a
highly complex sensory organ?
Uhh... Yeah, no,
you're wrong. I'm sorry that I'm not willing to field each and every one of your minor complaints to the theory of evolution, but these are questions that I'm sure that the scientific field has had to deal with. Ask a (real) scientist about it, and he'll either give you answers or bring up the issues in peer-based literature and disassemble the theory of evolution. But at this point, these issues that make you incredulous either haven't been apparent to the entire scientific community,
or they have been apparent, and have been covered. Which do you think is more likely? I'm going with the latter, personally.
Except square roots and irrational numbers can still occur in real life, and negativity is possible to replicate relative to another amount, the square root of -1 (i) however, is not a possible number to replicate in reality, just like "∞" does not truly exist [though extremely high numbers approaching ∞ are possible, ∞ can not actually occur, nor can you divide something by zero, black holes come close to doing that, but there still must be a point of extremely tiny volume located within the forces of one].
...And again, it doesn't matter. Mathematics is, like science,
applied logic. Things that only exist as concepts there (i, ∞, etc.) are there to help the system work. It's a model. And yes, for all intents and purposes, in our real lives, non-real numbers are pointless. But for the models in math, is ∞ something we could remove? No, of course not-think of all of the function limits we'd be forgetting about (lim[x->∞]=y). ∞, like i, is a concept. It exists to help us understand the systems of mathematics, a system we implemented to help understand the universe.
Ah, yes, because suicide, ****, murder, theft, mutilation, arson, harrassment, terrorizing acts, stupidity, and other actions are caused by religious beliefs and have never been commited by atheists at any point in time, I'll keep that in mind . . . . .
By the way, that is quite an ironic quote you chose to use, considering that of the men to fly in Apollo 11, no less than two of them were heavily religious. Buzz Aldrin even performed Communion
on the Moon. Not to mention that in Apollo 8, the first manned spacecraft mission to leave Earth orbit, involved all three crew members on-board taking turns reciting read the first ten verses of the Book of Genesis, while being filmed and broadcasted.[/quote]
Yet another person who cannot tell the difference between a person killing someone and being religious/atheistic, and a person killing someone
because they are religious/atheistic.
Stalin and the popes who propagated witch hunting and the crusades are responsible for genocide. However, did Stalin kill people because of his religion/lack thereof?
NO! His decision to kill people had
nothing to do with his religious denomination. However, the popes killed
because of their religious beliefs. There's a big ****ing difference.
And furthermore, the people on the missions may have been theistic. But did that have
anything to do with their perforance? NO! They were not astronauts because of their religion-there's
no correlation. Whereas the terrorists were motivated
exclusively by their secular beliefs!!! Seriously, it's not that hard to figure this out, guys.
There ARE limits to science, see what I wrote about gravity and time above, also, there is a point where even dimensions can not be thoroughly explained. We are aware of a minimum of four, but who's to say there aren't more? There's even a theory that there might be 11-dimensions and there are at least two variations of even that idea! That's not even the theoretical limit, that would just be the limit of possible comprehension that we can have, who's to say there aren't 20, or even 100 dimensions, and that our minds aren't complex enough to fathom beyond that? There are also plenty of other oddities in physics that will probably never be explained, even with advancements in science, just because of their very nature. That's part of the reason of why we do not know how the universe will end, will the expansion of the universe decelerate and reverse into an implosion? Will it just expand until the cold turns it into a barren land of nothingness? Not to mention that it has been recently discovered that the universe seems to be accelerating, which logically makes little sense with our knowledge of how the universe works, and now, that opens the door to other possibilities of how physics works, from causing the universe to literally tear itself to pieces by accelerating to the point that molecular bonds cease to exist to an assortment of other things that are extremely difficult to logically comprehend, much less prove true or false.
So? Your point? Science is fallible. Or... wait, no, I'm wrong, sorry,
Science itself is not. Science, as a principle, is infallible. Individual scientific theories/hypotheses
are fallible. But if they are proven wrong, they are
revised. Science has its limits, but
only because our understanding of reality does as well. If we were able to comprehend everything, then science would, in fact, be perfect.
I guess it never occured to you that it works both ways, if we're touching our children's beliefs by enforcing our own beliefs onto them, how does that not apply to athiesm, too?
It doesn't. We teach the children about each religion, but we do it by the merit of the religion. We teach them the facts, and
only the facts. To be exact, we explain that the religions exist, how they work, what their beliefs are founded on, etc., and then when they get old enough, we let them choose.
...Of course, in case it isn't obvious, by that time it'll seem like Santa Claus to them. This is another one of my major beefs with religion-if you haven't spent your entire life believing it as absolute fact, it's ludicrous to believe in at all. It's inherently unfair. So yes, the idea would be to teach them the
facts. And religion, on its own, will die out in a single generation like that.
And also, who's to say what is and is not rational? For example, in a world without God [take it for what you will . . . ], what does it feel like to be dead? Is there any rational way to actually describe it? What does "nothingness" feel like?
Neither of these things are rational in and of themselves (it's impossible to feel nothingness, and if you're dead, then you have nothing to feel). You can create irrational items all you want, doesn't change ****.
What about rational explanations about how we think, or even the purpose of memories?
Extremely complicated psychological cause and effect chains, and evolutionary advantages in things like pattern recognition, respectively. Science has the answers.
How about dreams? Is there any reason for them? What is the rational purpose of a dream, and why can sounds and visions of memories be decipherable to the degree that they are, what causes oddities in them, or even remembered after waking up to begin with?
Science doesn't have the answer to this one.
YET. It's not only incredibly likely, it's
almost certain that there is a rational answer to it.
Yeah, because religious people never contribute to society, I guess Isaac Newton was a nobody . . . . .
Religious people ≠ religion. See above. They are capable of contributing to society, but this contribution is almost always separate from their religious beliefs, and in every case has more to do with logical thinking. Has the church enabled such thinking by sponsoring people? Sometimes, but they are then intellectually and morally bankrupt whenever a scientific discovery goes against what they believe.
By the way, society drags down society, no matter what religion it is, you can not tell me that there aren't atheists [or people of any religion] out there that do virtually nothing with their life. If we all did do something producive toward science, mathematics, etc., the world would be WAY more productive. There are always many followers in comparison with a few leaders.
Yep. Except atheism does not actively instruct its members to go against logical reasoning and scientific advancement.
You can't be seriously thinking that it's only religious beliefs that are played "favorites" out there, how many people would complain about a show where a caucasian was the subject of comical abuse or was just dim-witted? How about if that person was Latino or African? If a handicapped person in a wheelchair is getting assistance or bonus wages to assist their living, isn't that playing "favorites" too? And don't get me started on how it is with gender in society . . . . . .
Err... You think this excuses it? "Other things get it too"? Yeah, I know, this is not the only unfair discrimination. Doesn't stop it from being unfair.
I guess celebrating July 4th is playing favorites too, because it's an extra freedom given to someone because of their country.
...And
only in their country. I'm not sure whether or not it's worthwhile to answer to this because a) it's obscenely trivial and b) it should be obvious why you're wrong but it's very difficult to put it into words. So I'll pass.
Those are still in the sheer minority, and there are plenty of other people that don't listen to reason, and there have been plenty of massacres [unfortunately] in the past that weren't related to religion.
...Same logic as before, same issue as before.
I'm glad that you think that's a good thing . . . . . .
What? No, it's just anecdotal evidence depicting why that's wrong...
So has everyone else, nearly every thought you made as a child was based on what happened to you, how someone else reacted, how someone else behaved. I guess being polite, civil, kind, or not being insulting are "brainwashing" too, because those traits are imprinted by others (such as parents) and generally aren't used in half-of-society anyway.
There's a difference between teaching your kids how to behave correctly in society and teaching them a fairy tale that contradicts science. I'm not going to hold my breath and wait for you to spot it.
Then why did you stereotype us [religious people] as being "brainwashed" in the previous statement? (Not to mention elsewhere)
Because you have been.
Do me a favor. Look at any other religion which you reject, and figure out why you reject that religion. Why is Islam worse than Christianity? Or Scientology? Or Buddhism? Judaism? It is borderline impossible to get a rational adult to believe in nonsense like this unless it's been imprinted into them as truth!
Not all religious people are willing to reject logical reasoning, though, and those are the people that this is
directly aimed at. The rest... well, sooner or later they'll be faced with reforming their religion, dropping their religion, or admitting that they are illogical and refusing to accept logic.
Because you're still killing humans to prevent other humans from dying? Not to mention that it's easier to stop stem-cell in your own country, than to go to, say, Africa, and stop slavery, an issue that, unfortunately, is still continuing on.
*****, please. "Killing humans"? Since when was that the same as taking dead embryos and experimenting on them? There's an ever-so-slight difference...
The "truth" is ambiguous, and is viewed differently by many people. Until it is possible to directly show living proof of evolution, it should NOT be considered the only possibility.
Done. What now?
( "Creating" breeds of animals do not count, as they are still the same kind of animal, not to mention that usually the genes are there to begin with in said breeds [or are minor mutations], which are focused on by the breeders to make more prominent.)
Still done.
Once again, because you can't prove that it isn't, the only way to have physical evidence that it's an instinct of any kind is if it is due to genetics, and at that point, why wouldn't it have been eliminated by evolution to begin with over the amount of millions of years that it had to have occured? Surely the inability to homosexually reproduce in most land vertabrates would have resulted in heterosexually oriented organisms completely eliminating the presence of homosexual genes, or at least make them closer to 0 (i.e. 1-in-100 million) than there are. And how do you actually prove which gene would cause gender orientation to begin with? And what if that gene actually required other, specific genes to activate in order to cause homosexuallity, when those genes had been previously discovered to be incorporated into a different purpose at the same time, regardless of whether that orientation gene is present or not?
Okay, here's an experiment for you. If you can successfully do this, you have disproven that sexuality is a choice. Turn gay. Become legitimately attracted to people of the same sex. Then turn straight, lose said attraction for the same sex, become attracted to the opposite sex.
I'll wait. And until then, I'll trust the testimony of
every single homosexual (with the possible exception of Ted Haggart, who I don't trust out of principle).
It will be years before we actually know the answer.
We DO know the answer. To beyond a fragment of a doubt.
A. It's not that simple, they aren't polar opposites and do have large gray areas, not to mention plenty of compatibilities in most areas.
Err... What? No. There is
no overlap between religion and science. Religion is non-scientific. Christianity itself demands ignorance and illogical thinking IN ITS HOLY BOOK!
B. Governments behave differently from the norm, there are plenty of millionares that did crack, did murder, or other attrocities, yet because their lawyers are paid well enough to scan every single line of the documents related to a case, they can go free without any time! I fail to see how that goes toward the well-being of the nation. Heck, half of the time the government does things that are against the well-being of the nation. (Earmarks, not using oil in US Territory, bailouts, allowing outsourcing to such degrees that companies that don't end up collapsing, etc.)
So?
This is really starting to get old fast, who are YOU to say that those people tha place their religious beliefs up high are deluding themselves? Who are YOU to say to say what is defined as being placed "above the good of the nation" and what is not? Are you going to tell me that if A government was taken over [in a negative way], that most of the population in that country WOULDN'T save their ***es and leave rather than take part in reclaiming the land they lived in? It isn't like that hasn't happened before, and it certainly wasn't for the good of the nation.
Anyway, claiming what is truth when it comes to the subject you are talking about IS [once again] arbitrary, because you can't see it in motion, you have to believe that the fossil evidence indicates evolution, though you can't replicate it as proof in realtime, just like we believe that God created the earth, etc. but can not accurately prove it in realtime either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vktnYVOsDns
I could explain it, but Thunderf00t is just so much better at this than I am. The reason we go with science instead of religion, as a way of learning how things work, is because: (say it with me, kids!)
SCIENCE. ****ING. WORKS.
BPC keeps making out that religion is conflict with science, yet many scientists are thiests, there are scientific arguments for God's existence, and many scientific developments came from thiests. So I don't see how the two are in conflict.
I cited the bible verse a ways back showing that such was the case in Christianity. Not sure about the other religions. And yeah, see above about religious scientists.
Also, there are scientific arguments or the existence of
something. Call it god if you want, there is no evidence of it sharing any qualities with Yahweh, Allah, or Jehovah.
Also, if all religions should be banned because one or two conflict with science, then all science should be banned when two scientists produce conflicting theories or results. Because apparently, someone who is in your field being wrong means the entire field itself must be wrong.
Wut? And now I am very confused. I'm proposing the removal of religions who conflict with science. To extrapolate out to within the field of discipline... this quote is hilariously bad, Dre. I thought I could expect better of you. I hope you don't need me to spell it out for you.
There's no point debating BPC here because he's not educated about religion. He showed that months ago when he thought the Christian God was a guy in the clouds with a beard.
...A tidbit I have since updated my knowledge on, thank you.
You can understand the basic notion of Gid and still have no idea about religion, so BPC is galaxies away from understanding what he's criticising.
Eh... nah, not so much.
