Believe in science & ethics

last SG · 2007-08-17T14:02:49+00:00

The scope of science is very wide.It includes social sciences such as sociology,psychology and politics.

Kachui SG

"Solid" evidence, perhaps? And I take offence in you calling christians deluded. Hoping to have a civil discussion here, not name calling.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidence-for-evolution.htm

pretzel SG

Who wrote all these? Is it a few christians?

pretzel SG

Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolutionary change is observed in nature. (crit) Natural selection serves as a means of conservation, not one of creation. It explains survival of a species, not arrival of a species. Here's an illustration: You work in a car factory. Your job is quality control - make sure the cars work like they are supposed to. You kick the tires and slam the doors, drive the cars around, etc. You identify and remove defects (an arbitrary selection with the same final result as natural selection). How long would it take for this selection process to turn one of those cars into an airplane naturally over time? It won't happen.

This is the shiit.

pretzel SG

I kicked a dog and it jumped up, barked and tried to bite me. But when I kicked a car, nothing happened. Why is there such a difference? No siree, I do not know

If this is the kind of evidence christians use to debunk evolution, goodluck to the delusional

Kachui SG

Point taken. Believing in an intelligent designer is the realm of faith. But I was just trying to point out that it is possible for a scientist to be a believer in a divine creator.

And your point of needing to say who this intelligent designer is, what if I walk through the woods, and come across an ancient pyramid like structure, I would infer that it is built by an intelligent civilization, but I don't know who they are. So would it be possible for the microbiologist looking into the cell, and come to a decision that the cell couldn't have been caused by accidents, but by intelligent design? It is just that he does not know who or what this designer is.

stupidissmart SG

I agree with wat andrew had said. Paticularly about scientist accepting the facts and evidences and believe anything tat can be proven and make sense. And in the case of creation and evolution, it is inevitable tat intelligent design and evolution theory have to be compared.

If you believe evolution is wrong, u don't even need to refute the thousands over evidences tat support evolution. U just need to show 1, and only one evidence tat clearly show evolution is wrong. However religious committee have been searching for tat one evidence but to no avail. Living being changes over a long period of time is a fact.

If u want to prove creationism is right, then u have to show evidences tat show intelligent design is the way. Again u just need to show only 1 irrefutable evidence to prove it. Otherwise there is no reason to believe in something tat is potentially wrong.

And if u wanna show website supporting intelligent design, u should show the website from reputable scientific organisation. If u show the website from religious sources, then u just prove tat intelligent design is not scientific and only religious. And being religious, they can believe in things u will not commonly see in everyday life so much so tat non believers will classified it as fantasy.

And your point of needing to say who this intelligent designer is, what if I walk through the woods, and come across an ancient pyramid like structure, I would infer that it is built by an intelligent civilization, but I don't know who they are. So would it be possible for the microbiologist looking into the cell, and come to a decision that the cell couldn't have been caused by accidents, but by intelligent design? It is just that he does not know who or what this designer is.

If i see a big piece of unknown thing in front of me, I can only conclude
1) There is tis big piece of unknown thing in front of me

Tat is it.

U should not conclude

2) tis must be something made by some intelligent being
3) there is an intelligent being
4) give stories and characteristics to tis intelligent being

because the fact can be

5) made by the randomness of tis galaxy
6) parallel universe
7) ancient civilisation
Cool strange house made by some animal
9) newly discovered mineral or crystal
10) some living things
11) aliens or its structure

Looking at your example of the pyramid, the person can make studies to the architecture and its interior and study the history until it can give concrete evidence and sound conclusion. Then it will come up with the conclusion of ancient egypt and its civilisation. On the other hand if the person just say it is made by an intelligent being and then do not do any studies and just dumbly pray to tis structure, then they will always think there is an intelligent being tat made the structure and never know the real fact behind it.

AndrewPKYap SG

You can use the words "an intelligent civilization" because there are precedents for it. We might not know which "intelligent civilization" but we do know that because the Ancient Egyptians built pyramids it is likely that "an intelligent civilization" built the one that we stumbled across in the forest.

If we find on it unknown elements (metals) that are not found any where else on earth, we might conjecture that it was deposited there by aliens.

Because there are pyramids in the desert of Egypt, and there are no evidence of deposits by aliens, we say... that the better explanation is that "an intelligent civilization" built it and we don't know why there are unknown elements on it.

There is also a problem with your example. Evolution deals with living things and we all know that the DNA of living things change, mutate, and evolve.

There is no evidence that non living things (a pyramid) can simply pop up from nowhere.

So you are not comparing apples with apples when you compare a living cell with a pyramid.

ID deals with "eliminating" possibilities and then makes a leap of faith. That is not acceptable in science. They say: "it can't be this, it can't be that, it can't be evolution and so, it must be "an intelligent designer!"

When you eliminate the possibilities, then the scientist will say, "well in that case, we don't know!"

If you can prove that evolution is wrong, then the scientist will say, "OK evolution is wrong, we do not know". That is all. Scientist will not say, "OK Evolution is wrong, so it must be ID".

They might even say: "Let's examine the possibility that an intelligent designer created it and let's try to get the evidence and proof for that."

If they cannot, then they will say, "OK there is no evidence and proof of a designer, so let's forget it and review this when somebody comes up with the evidence and proof."

AndrewPKYap SG

BTW it is widely acknowledge that a Christian philosopher Descartes (the cart) started the revolution in scientific thought. Before him, people depended on beliefs. After him, people depended on proof and evidence.

Daddy!! SG

Christians have faith in Jesus Christ, his miracles of raising the dead etc and his resurrection.

stupidissmart SG

but science cannot tolerate faith because faith is blind. It can not distinguish between truth and lies.

AndrewPKYap SG

There is a place for faith and beliefs. Unfortunately it leads to a delusional state of mind (unable to distinguish between truth and lies). It need not be.

Daddy!! SG

what are the truths and lies that the Christian faith could not distinguish?

kecang_puteh SG

I think creationism, intelligent design and evolution falls into this category. I wonder why christians like to go to pro-christian websites to look for obviously christian biased information and lies on these subjects. If the Pope can use some common sense, why can't the rest of the christians? Either the Pope is lying, dumb or right.

"This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such. --- Pope Benedict XVI

kecang_puteh SG

By the way, I see alot of christians questioning the supposed lack of evidence for evolution when the evidence are so numerous. Who are these christians? Is Kachui a scientist? Does he have enough credibility to say that the evidence for evolution is not "solid" enough?

Just because he posted a link to a christian website, people are supposed to believe in that? Check out the evidence given there. Comparing a non-living thing with a living thing? That's plain ridiculous.

There's a reason why most scientists of all religions agree that evolution is a valid scientific theory aka fact, as can be seen by the many scientific communities' stand on the subject, and only a handful of christians (or christian scientists) believe in creationism

http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=10(National Science Teachers' Association)
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution%20statement.pdf (Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries)
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf (American Association for the Advancement of Science)

PRP SG

U accused me I'm psyeudo-intellect.It is easy to any how make accusation.Show the readers your reasons & evidence to say that.

If is just my belief that the majortiy don't believe god created the world.One reason: the majority are not Chistians.

Why don't you convince us god created the world is scientific?It is more positive to do that then criticising theory of evolution.

PRP SG

I was not labelling christain as piteous.I was trying to say those who believe strongly in Chrianity not to read my that criticism on the religion.

U certainly was offended by my that criticism on god created the world and so you accuse all kind of negative remark.

I think god created the world is unscientific.Your postitive reply should be it is believable because ..... But have you done that?Then u accused me as psyeudo-intellectual,...... Is this the right way to debate?

PRP SG

We don't know anything about science.Only u know!! So don't debate with us.

PRP SG

A master piece of argument!Someone would not accuse you as psyeudo-intelllectul.

stupidissmart SG

what are the truths and lies that the Christian faith could not distinguish?

Personally, IMO there r many issues I think is unbelievable but tat is beside the point. The point is, faith is subjective and do not rely on factual evidences. U can see different people with different belief having faith in completely different things. Surely it is impossible for everybody to be correct since it is different.

soul_rage SG

You don't dare answer the question on stepping on burnt hell money rite?

You dare to open the umbrella at home during the 7th Month?

If you keep harping on how silly superstition is, then what are you doing?

Sometimes, being too hardcore on Science IS ALSO a superstition.
That's all I can say. Science causes too many of us to become skeptics, and become less receptive about things beyond Science.

That's something which many people like you or Andrew, who go on and on about Science, that do not understand. By insisting that everything else that cannot be explained by Science is superstition or rubbish, is itself a superstition.

« Previous Page Next Page »