Printable View
Evidence is like Big Foot. The question is: If there are imprints of Bib Foot then where is the so-called Big Foot???
Much is said about the UFO's but why these chiefly appear in the US and not in other countries, such as the Far East or the Middle East??
My question is, what should we do when we bump into people with opinions like those of Bien? It's clear that the debates go nowhere. When you have a normal debate, sometimes you make good points or your opponent does and that changes someone's mind on an issue which is always cool because it means that there's been growth. Bien will NEVER change his mind, so do we just not bother to argue? If we don't argue against people like that, is doing nothing while they loudly insist on such outdated ideas going to have negative consequences (for example, are they going to start to force biology teachers to teach creationism in schools and push for them to cease teaching evolution altogether, or send kids to "learn how not to be gay with the power of Jesus" camps)? Arguing against them is tedious, and the subject is very very stupid which makes me feel stupid for giving it time in the first place, but should we argue anyway to prevent vocal fundamentalist Christians from getting too much attention which might lead to terrible decisions being made in politics and education?
Well Juniper, I think we should respect people's beliefs so long as they do not force them upon us or, as you say, introduce them into a school's curriculum. The scientific method should be the standard by which the material taught to children should measured. Beyond that I say let people believe what they want to believe. While I disagree profoundly with what Bien has said in this thread, I do respect his right to believe as he chooses and to freely express those beliefs.
Would Juniper ever change hers?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Hey, Bien, what do you think about those pictures you posted of the fabricated drawings?
I totally disagree that the so-called scientific method should be taught to children. Let's just leave the THEORIES out of the curriculum. I as well respect your beliefs, but don't you see that your belief is just as subjective as mine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I'll admit that is possible. Can you document that, or do I just take your word for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
The difference is that my beliefs can be empirically verified. Science is self-correcting, it refines itself through the ever ongoing interplay of hypothesis, evidence and theory. The bible, on the other hand, is set in stone. A scientific fact is reliable in a way that a biblical statement is not. What reason do you have for having faith in the bible? Its almost arbitrary. Why not the Book of Mormon, why not the Koran? What reason do I have for believing in evolution? The evidence indicates that the theory is true, that's my reason. Science relies on evidence, the bible relies on itself. Evolution is "true" because of what our observations of the natural world lead us to conclude. The bible is true why? Its true because its true?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I'm sorry....evolution cannot be empirically verified. What you call scientific fact, is NOT a fact. It's called the THEORY of Evolution for a reason. The Bible CAN be verified by archeological evidence. But I'm wasting my breath...Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I said the evidence "indicates" that its true. Of course its just a theory. I see that the main thrust of my response has been dodged. None of the supernatural claims in the bible can be verified, nor supported in any meaningful way. The theory of evolution has volumes of naturalistic observations backing it up, not proving it, but indicating the incredible likelihood of its being true.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
A scientific claim refers beyond itself to the world at large. The bible refers to back onto itself. In the end all the believer can say is "its true because its true."
Every day. You'll have a hard time convincing me that Jesus rode a dinosaur, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Also, no one seems to understand the definition of the word "theory" as it's defined in science. I can tell, because they write the phrase "it's just a" beforehand. In science, a conclusion has to get battered and tested over and over, other scientists have to try their hardest to disprove the conclusion (and believe me, at the prize of having their names in textbooks all over the planet for decades, maybe for as long as textbooks exist, they tried their damned hardest to replace Darwin's theories with their own), and then, and ONLY THEN, after tireless research, does a conclusion earn the right to be called a "theory" in the scientific community. It's not just something that some random guy chucked out willy-nilly, it's a THEORY. Bien, YOU seem to be looking for a "law." You're not going to find one in this case, so you've invented one.
I'm sorry, but the whole idea of something from nothing, intelligence from non-intelligence, order from chaos seems pretty supernatural to me. It doesn't even make good sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
I'm done arguing here. The funny thing is that you guys think that I'm the narrow minded one here.
Theory in the scientific context means a set of tested hypotheses and applications that explain a specific phenomena. Such that the theory of gravity is the scientific explanation of the phenomena of gravity. The theory of evolution is the scientific explanation of the phenomena of evolution. Evolution itself is fact based on the fossil and genetic evidence.
The meaning here being derived from the original greek meaning, which is a way of looking at something.
If science could be 'self-corrective' beliefs too. The number of planets keeps on increasing, new diseases are evidencing themselves, which fact itself tells upon the
inadequacy and impermanence of science with time. Beliefs are also self-corrective but depend on how to take them to be, when and where?
What is good at one place cannot definitely be the same at other. compare for instance, the Western beliefs against those of the Chinese or Japanese. There is always room for improvement both in science as well as belief but all depends on how one fairly and open-mindedly delves on his thoughts.
There is definitely some truth in what you say here. Being a believer by no means makes one close-minded or unreasoning, not at all. Religion, including Christianity, can be a dynamic, enlightened thing. The difference I think though is that with science EVERYTHING is on the table, nothing is above being potentially discredited. With faith that is not the case. In fact its this constant flux which has been science's greatest strength and claim to legitimacy. Nothing is sacred before the fact. It all depends on what the research shows. Every theory out there could be overturned, every law and every fact disproven, and still, science itself, the process and method, would remain unaltered. Again, with faith this is not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur