Science vs. Scientism: Creation Science vs. Evolution - Page 8 - Political Forum

Agrippina · 10-16-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Agrippina, you would have so many possible extremely strong cases. Why do you pick up the one that is not even a weak one?

You argument above is simply incorrect. Sorry to be that harsh but it really is. I recommend to you reading "Mein Kampf" if you dont believe me.

Well, to save you from doing so (I dont want to torture you, unnecessarely

), I tell you what I mean. Hitler always rejected religious antisemitism and opposed it quite consequently. And thats not a controversial statement of mine, I think its general consensus among historicians.

The reason why he still was probably the worst jew murderers in history is not based in religion but in the inhuman and unethical (not to say flawed as well) scientific concept of "social darwinism" in combination with his psychological demand of finding a scape goat.

You see now, why I only mean it good with you, if I suggest you to change the example you bring forward the bad sides of religion?

Hitler was really not much more than catholic by name. He considered himself to be nearly as much catholic as he considered himself to be Austrian...
What he did with the pope, was all about strategical decissions, he could not need the opposition of the pope, not because he was such a catholic, but because lots of Germans were. It would have cost lots of resources to surpress the political damage a hostile pope could have caused in the Reich. So it was very logical to just bribe the pope (introduction of Kirchensteuer) instead of fighting him.

I see your point, and thank you for your input, but even if he wasn't a practicing catholic, he was nevertheless a catholic by baptism. I do believe that the theory is 'once a catholic always a catholic' and 'give me a child for 5 years and he will always be a catholic'. my point is that secular people don't care enough about others' religions to go out to kill them, they kill other people for more sensible reasons, although I have yet to be convinced of a sensible reason for starting a war.

That Darn Republican · 10-16-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Creationism is not science. If it had any philosophical merit, one might be able to suffer it; but it is religious nonsense.

I can see you are up to your usual propagandistic venting. You offering but trite and dismissable quips. If you read a previous post, I had mentioned earlier that neither evolution or intelligent design are sciences, they are the platforms for their varying world views. It is just whether science can validate claims in either camp, as it is turning out there is more evidence supporting intelligent design over evolution. I know your bias is glaring, but try to be objective.

Agrippina · 10-16-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

I can see you are up to your usual propagandistic venting. You offering but trite and dismissable quips.

I hardly think that my replies are 'dismissable quips'.
I will ask you again, please do not quote your own musings, give me references that I can read and study for myself, not your own interpretation of your own subjective imaginings or Sunday School teachings.

Quote:

If you read a previous post, I had mentioned earlier that neither evolution or intelligent design are sciences, they are the platforms for their varying world views. It is just whether science can validate claims in either camp, as it is turning out there is more evidence supporting intelligent design over evolution.

I have not defended intelligent design because I regard it as fallacious as I regard creationism so I dismiss it. For intelligent design to be valid, it presupposes a designer, which brings me back to a previous argument, who created the creator. Who designed the intelligent design and why did the intelligent designer not leave some sort of point of reference on his design?
Therefore I am not discussing it. I am discussing the Theory of Evolution, note 'theory' I have also never said the 'science'.
Science validates various 'theories' that proves evolution may have happened. If you understand anything at all about empiricism you will know that empirical evidence merely supports a theory, it does not prove the theory and for a theory to be accepted as valid, it has to be open to refutation. That is why we evolve, not only physically but in knowledge, as we know more about our world, the more we can validate previous theories.
Once you have proven something for absolute certain, then all further research is unnecessary.
This is what has happened with religion. Believers in religion think that they have the absolute and irrefutable truth for their particular belief and refuse to do further research that may refute that belief. The fear of the belief being refuted is far greater than any fear of hellfire because in the refutation of a religious belief will come the uncertainty that other parts of the belief may also be invalid, thus causing the entire belief system to fall down.
Science doesn't work that way, science expands its knowledge and delights in the refutation of its theories which opens them up to further study, further learning and yes, further refutation.

Quote:

I know your bias is glaring, but try to be objective.

The only subjective theories that have been posted here are the closed ones that cannot be refuted and are not open to discussion, if only you would quote references, it would enable me to find other refrences to theories which refute yours. If you will note, earlier on I made some comments about Herr Hitler, which were pointed out to me to be incorrect. I did not defend myself to the poster with subjective retaliation but rather with an explanation for my belief that Hitler was born a catholic therefore his thinking about religion would be biased in favour of catholicism. If you read through this post you will observe that my reasoning is perfectly in line with empirical research and therefore objective. You only view my remarks as being subjective because they do not subscribe to your Christian point of view.

And again I ask you to please quote references, do not give me your own opinions unless they are supported by references to your published theses.

Agrippina · 10-16-2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.J. Wilczek

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has ruled that “Intelligent Design” is creationism and not science. See Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). The "pseudo-scientists" had their day in court. The case is closed.

Thank you very much for that - now I must make a note of those references.
I have said this all along, it's merely an excuse to get creationism in by the back door.

That Darn Republican · 10-16-2007, 11:23 AM

Yes I remember that case... and it exposed the bias of the judge as advocate that heard the case, what you didn't mention is that the case is not closed the ADF took up the case, as well and reviewed by cheif counsils at the ACLJ -- we'll see how that ends up.

That Darn Republican · 10-16-2007, 11:24 AM

Agrippina,

Take all the footnotes you that advocate your position -- that is all you look for, something that supports how you want to live. That must take an awful lot out of your day? In the end... things will be what they were alway said to be, and then what?

That Darn Republican · 10-16-2007, 11:25 AM

Ok... Mr. Oregon Elephant, pt. 1

First in revealing the fallacy of evolution as fact is by remembering that it is a theory, intelligent design doesn't call itself factual -- but science does support it. Secular scientists who have ab atheist world view blast Christians as not accepting science, but I say can you blame them? But that simply isn't true to report. Intelligent Design actually depends on science... completely, whish is why their are more and more secular scientists weighing in on the ID argument and finding more and more evidence that we were intelligently designed, not for the purpose of religiosity. But for the purpose of having an answer -- you know, kinda what science is suppose to be about, and not an answer that suits a lifestyle - but simply answers the question. Simply put, there is far more empirical evidence that supports its claims than its secular rival evolution.

That fact that evolution is pawned off and regarded as fact by secular instructors, who many have been bold enough to openly chastise anyone in class [a negative reinforcement tactic] who disagrees with their idealogical bent is even more evidence that it is being used as a weapon in dislodging one's faith in God with an man made substitute, than actually trying to have an answer... The initial premise must be addressed that separates ideological from scriptural perspectives.

Evolution: Has no answer for what we are, nor man's origins other that to say either primate progression or, primordial goo... its critical arguement is that life came from lifelessness. Depending on how extreme your bent is, in either case it would appear that it would a strong platform for living as carelessly as you want because you have nothing to look forward to.

Intelligent Design: Is based on evidence provided by historical record in the Bible, to date even secular archaeologists rely on the Bible for world events, or the geological location of ancient cultures, and most important... science. Law and civil process and of course spiritual enrichment, and answers the question "in the beginning".

The Basic Thesis:

Evolution: That life came from non-life, and that simply lifeforms progressively grew into more complex lifeforms. They claim all of this is product of pure chance and not that of a process that was guided by a sovereign Creator, and that it took immense amounts of time to create this universe, our planet and yes... us as well. It has no answer for emotions, creativity, behavior, a spirit with us nor a soul nor the purpose of our conscience.

Intelligent Design: Focuses on science and holds a the initial premise that life cannot emerge from non-life, simply put; something dead cannot author life, to make such a claim is irrational and unscientific. Science supports that DNA research shows information is lost generation to generation, not added which debunks the million and billions argument levied by evolution scientists.

There are different kinds of evolution
a) Darwinian - naturalism
b) Micro evolution - sub cellular
evolution or minor interspecies
adaptation
c) Macro - Species evolution

The biggest problem of course being the validity of macro evolution i.e. say a guppy becomes a dragon or something. Evidence should be the focus... for example, when a crime investigator is looking for evidence in a crime, they are looking for what it called intentionality, well so does intelligent design. When driving past a mountain range and happen to see Mount Rushmore... well, you see evidence of intentionality, or purpose to its creation. Intelligent design looks for the intentionality in the fossil record, DNA, etc.

This is just part 1, I have so much hard data to supply since pressed to supply it, I am all too happy to comply.

footnotes:
Dr. Ron Rhodes Ph.D [ten things you should know about the creation/evolution debate]

Oregon Elephant · 10-16-2007, 11:40 AM

May I give some advice to you TDR, before you try to convince us of ID, it would be best to try to disprove evolution.

That Darn Republican · 10-16-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Intelligent Design" is not supported by any science

I don't know where you are getting your information from - but one state school districts legal issue is not the template for the whole of the scientific community - I know you want people to just bow to what you submit, but you are flat out incorrect in you assertion that intelligent design is not supported by science. That would be an out right fabrication. ID doesn't suppose irreducible complexity is the a problem that exists in mutation arguments. Where do you get your information - I notice you like gleaming that opinion on the ID school board case. Saying everything you want to hear... this is the reason we need advocate judges out of the courts. He is singing to a secular choir. But your assertion is dead wrong, I dont' care what you have to present because now I know your bias and what you base it on.

That Darn Republican · 10-16-2007, 11:47 AM

Here elephant - the whole argument is this, that some cataclysmic event took place from the dead of space and that somehow from nothing... life in whatever form you want to herald it came from it. If that is your principle argument, you have no argument because you have to start with something, you cannot start with nothing and get even a little something. That saws the legs of the argument right there... you can't propose to branch out your evolutionary thesis until you prove -- or get past your principle issue that cannot seem to work itself out. Nothing cannot bring something, is that clear enough?