Infidel Castro
New member
What, you mean that people 2500yrs ago couldn\'t understand periods of time greater than a day? Drivel, absolute drivel. :no:
Evolution?
- Thread starter junior elf
- Start date
What, you mean that people 2500yrs ago couldn\'t understand periods of time greater than a day? Drivel, absolute drivel. :no:
Infidel Castro
New member
The big difference though is that people (called scientists) are constantly able to search further and deeper into science, assessing, re-assessing, improving understanding and working steadily to, perhaps, a real idea of how life formed. The same cannot happen with religion as it\'s esoteric and (to many folk) not verifiable.
Infidel Castro
New member
Because it fits you religious view, rather than scientific basis...
junior elf
New member
Thank you reverend for clearing all that up.
Infidel Castro
New member
Really?
junior elf
New member
What?
Infidel Castro
New member
Were you thanking me or being facetious?
Creationism is a pseudo-science at best.
Creationism is a pseudo-science at best.
junior elf
New member
I was thanking you, what\'s pseudo-science?
Anything with \"Pseudo\" prefixed means (simplified) \"Not quite\"
Ie. A Pseudo-Polis (Polis being Greek(?) for City would a large town that is almost a city except in name.
(First example I could think of)
So therefore, \"Pseudo-Science\" is any form of explanation for things that tried to use complicated scientific terms and analogies without really understanding them. Think of cosmetics adverts
lol
Ie. A Pseudo-Polis (Polis being Greek(?) for City would a large town that is almost a city except in name.
(First example I could think of)
So therefore, \"Pseudo-Science\" is any form of explanation for things that tried to use complicated scientific terms and analogies without really understanding them. Think of cosmetics adverts
lol
freakinacage
Well-known member
yeah cosmetic adverts, gotta laugh eg? nice to see some pratchett shoehorned into the debate!!Originally posted by DaN
Anything with \"Pseudo\" prefixed means (simplified) \"Not quite\"
Ie. A Pseudo-Polis (Polis being Greek(?) for City would a large town that is almost a city except in name.
(First example I could think of)
So therefore, \"Pseudo-Science\" is any form of explanation for things that tried to use complicated scientific terms and analogies without really understanding them. Think of cosmetics adverts
Infidel Castro
New member
Pardon my sharpness, but in these dark days of increasing religionism, science is being given a bad name. It\'s been happening ever since people started thinking for themselves, learning as they go through empirical data, conjecture, experimentation, etc. We\'ve come a long way in a short time, so let\'s see how far we get in another 50yrs. It\'s exciting, yah? Not for some apparently - there seems to be more prejudice towars science than ever from the religionising fraternity (or at least your fundie christians).
Genesis is a poetic book, not a science manual.
demonherald
New member
interesting point on the \"it fit\'s your religous ideal..\" seems that is the way any science is approached... If Scientists proved the existense of god then the religions would unite in the glory of science and that scientific findings are all infallible.. As it stands current science doesn\'t have that proof hence all science is looked at as wrong..
I guess scientists are the same as well new theories are always shunned until enough evidence is put down to disprove the unbelievers..
Fundamental difference , religion is a shelter and a safe place that people hide behind ignoring all evidence to the contrary..
science is at least open to new ideas eventually..:beer:
I guess scientists are the same as well new theories are always shunned until enough evidence is put down to disprove the unbelievers..
Fundamental difference , religion is a shelter and a safe place that people hide behind ignoring all evidence to the contrary..
science is at least open to new ideas eventually..:beer:
demonherald
New member
I think that kind of backs up the point.. In a world totally devoid of any medical experimentation by man Then disease such as those that are indeed genetic would not be as prevelant. People with the disorder simply wouldn\'t survive long enough or be able to compete to breed..
It\'s like people holding benefit concerts and the likes to aid starving people in a country where that starvation has occured due to the natural environment that environment is unable to support them yet society insists on keeping them alive ... (don\'t think I\'m a bastard I don\'t disagree with charities) All I am saying is that as a species Human beings are the first species to transcend the natural parameters for survival . Therefore any evolution that takes place from now on kind of rattles the survival of the fittest theories.
I wouldn\'t say those are the same things at all. Science is, above all, a meritocracy. Any idea is worth only as much as the supporting evidence. The theory of plate tectonics was correct, but it took sixty years after it was first presented for the evidence to become so overwhelming that the theory gained universal acceptance. The idea of a heliocentric solar system took almost 2 millennia for the available evidence to catch up. Consider that it\'s been 500 years since that issue was put to rest and 25% of Americans still believe the sun goes around the earth.
Skepticism is good.
Science is self-correcting albeit sometimes very slowly. Religion, on the other hand, just stays wrong. Churchill\'s quip on democracy works here too. Science is the worst way of explaining the universe, except for all the other ones.
Survival of the fittest isn\'t an accurate description of natural selection. Plus you\'re failing to consider that altruism is a product of evolution. It is our very nature to help out one another and to ease the suffering of others. This is behavior that has been observed throughout the animal kingdom.
I\'d like to see some evidence on that. As I\'m more of the opinion that Altruism is am individual product of social attitudes and group conditioning rather than an instinctive behaviour.
However I\'m open to being proved wrong.
No Such Agency
New member
Only if it insists on providing illogical explanations for things that it isn\'t equipped to explain. The Christian interpretations that justified slavery, or beating your wife/kids, or butchering the heathens, did not \"stay wrong\". They were rejected as (most) people saw how unjust they were. Religious people resisted the Vietnam war and marched with the civil rights movement, both causes that a century before would have been decried with the words \"God is on our side\".
Now that IS the truth.
freakinacage
Well-known member
yup!
demonherald
New member
Originally posted by Prophet
I wouldn\'t say those are the same things at all. Science is, above all, a meritocracy. Any idea is worth only as much as the supporting evidence. The theory of plate tectonics was correct, but it took sixty years after it was first presented for the evidence to become so overwhelming that the theory gained universal acceptance. The idea of a heliocentric solar system took almost 2 millennia for the available evidence to catch up. Consider that it\'s been 500 years since that issue was put to rest and 25% of Americans still believe the sun goes around the earth.
Skepticism is good.
Science is self-correcting albeit sometimes very slowly. Religion, on the other hand, just stays wrong. Churchill\'s quip on democracy works here too. Science is the worst way of explaining the universe, except for all the other ones.
That\'s basically what I said.. just not in as intelligent a way....
