45% of Americans are Morons

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Mitochondria, different types of DNA structures (bacteria versus protozoa, for example), chloroplasts, plus various other organelles in various kinds of independent, non-bacterial cells. Plus some of the weird crap out there, like ricketsia (did I spell that right after almost 30 years?), etc. I suspect Kuci is even more up to date than I am, he's been in school alot more recently.

First let me admit that I'm not all that interested in this subject, and I don't know all that much about it, but answers like this raise a red flag with me. To me when you are talking about topics that rely on people's beliefs and one or both sides start talking about evidence that is 'significant' but really isn't and calling the otherside morons you've lost all reason, and the more I see 'scientists' claim how unbiased they are the more I see how much they are.

[Dauphin]

The history of science is littered with young upstarts upsetting the world order and the old guard refusing to accept the new theories and ideas. They both have faith in science. Its not the theories they trust, its the method of how they come to accept them.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Kidicious


the more I see 'scientists' claim how unbiased they are the more I see how much they are.

They are biased towards methodology. Proven methods, that are corroborated by other scientists. The creationists have no methodology. They are basing their conclusions on faith without any basis in fact.

[Theben]

Originally posted by CyberShy
If I read all those qualifications give by people to creationists I must conclude that creationism must be right since there's no reason to bash something that often and that hard if it doesn't exist at all.

My father always teached my sister and me, when we were arguing, that the one who was yelling and insulting most obviously was wrong.
He appeared to be right most of the times.

I don't believe in evolution, well, I don't believe that the current living organisms have evolved from one first living cell or whatever.

I'm not sure if I'm a creationist.
I believe that God may have created the earth 6000 years ago. Might have been much longer ago though. In fact I'm sure that the earth's not younger then 6000 years

You must believe in a lot of contradictory things.

Seriously, what's so hard about believing God is behind evolution?!

[Ben Kenobi]

Thank you Cybershy. I was perusing the thread and came to the same conclusion. I know plenty of scientists that see science as supporting their own religious beliefs, and if you go back in history, you'll find that this is the case for many of the scientists back then too.

It's only been recently that scientists have been discouraged from taking this approach, as the concept that education necessarily relies upon removing references to God has become ascendant. To the scientists that that are the giants upon which today's scientists stand upon, such a statement would be seen as nonsensical at best, and dangerous at worst.

[Ben Kenobi]

They are biased towards methodology. Proven methods, that are corroborated by other scientists. The creationists have no methodology. They are basing their conclusions on faith without any basis in fact.

Perhaps then you ought to look more closely at the evolutionists' necessary plank of abiogenesis, where living things are said to form from non-living matter.

[Provost Harrison]

Being overly reductionist once more BK? Explain why you don't like abiogenesis...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dauphin
The history of science is littered with young upstarts upsetting the world order and the old guard refusing to accept the new theories and ideas. They both have faith in science. Its not the theories they trust, its the method of how they come to accept them.

So what ever theory I come up with using the scientific method is fact, and any theory that isn't based on that method is false? What kind of reasoning is that?

[Provost Harrison]

Depends on whether it stands up to scientific scrutiny...

[Whaleboy]

I know plenty of scientists that see science as supporting their own religious beliefs, and if you go back in history, you'll find that this is the case for many of the scientists back then too.

And how many of them have read Leibniz?

It's only been recently that scientists have been discouraged from taking this approach, as the concept that education necessarily relies upon removing references to God has become ascendant. To the scientists that that are the giants upon which today's scientists stand upon, such a statement would be seen as nonsensical at best, and dangerous at worst.

Why? One is less inclined to see God in, say, m-theory, than Copernicus for example, although m-theory can trace its lineage back then.

[Whaleboy]

So what ever theory I come up with using the scientific method is fact, and any theory that isn't based on that method is false? What kind of reasoning is that?

Scientific method is a method of testing propositions, not necessarily coming up with them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Scientific method is a method of testing propositions, not necessarily coming up with them.

Well it should be that way shouldn't it, but it is not always that way. Sometimes people develope theories that will test well.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Theben


You must believe in a lot of contradictory things.

Seriously, what's so hard about believing God is behind evolution?!

Most people believe in a lot of contradictory things, mostly because we're not capable to keep a correct track of all our believes
But what made you say what you said?

And in response to your 2nd comment:
What makes you think that I do not believe that God is behind evolution?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
What 'significant' evidence Kuci?

Mostly phylogenetic studies.

They indicate that any common ancestor would have had to have a very large number of cellular traits that were lost by its various descendents as they branched out. The theory is that the common ancestor was actually just a loose community of protocells which were just simple membranes with some very primitive genetic elements that easily passed in and out of the membrane, leading to mostly lateral spread of traits rather than inheritence.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Perhaps then you ought to look more closely at the evolutionists' necessary plank of abiogenesis, where living things are said to form from non-living matter.

Scientists do not have all the answers, but they have provided us with so many. What answers has faith provided us with? Science probably will never answer the unanswerable questions, so we have religion and faith for the big questions. Is there life after death? What is the origin of the universe? What is the meaning and origin of life? Religion and faith act as anodynes towards these gaping blanks in our knowledge.

The fact that scientists cannot answer these questions does not make all scientific inquiry invalid and does not discredit evolutionary theory. We don't fully understand gravity, but we don't assume that god is holding us to the surface of the earth. It just shows the current limitations of science. Science still has a long way to go. The human species is very young geologically speaking and I am certain if the species survives that we will still learn amazing things about ourselves and the universe that we live in.

Religion and faith provide no answers. They provide comforting myths to plug the holes in our knowledge. They are a bulwark against existential angst and for those who cannot face a nihilistic universe.