ATTN: People Who Believe in Creation Myths

[Night Strike]

Of course science is true: it was designed by God. However, human interpretations of science are not always correct.

On this, I absolutely agree with Nightstrike.

Insisting that anyone of faith is an idiot who does not understand science is beneath you pimpdave... and such attitudes do nothing to advance knowledge or understanding.

You obviously haven't read enough of pimpdave's posts. Pimpdave hates conservatives, hates Christians, and will go out of his way to post slander about either, especially if he can slander both in one post. This thread is par for the course for him.

[PLAYER57832]

Of course science is true: it was designed by God. However, human interpretations of science are not always correct.

On this, I absolutely agree with Nightstrike.

Insisting that anyone of faith is an idiot who does not understand science is beneath you pimpdave... and such attitudes do nothing to advance knowledge or understanding.

You obviously haven't read enough of pimpdave's posts. Pimpdave hates conservatives, hates Christians, and will go out of his way to post slander about either, especially if he can slander both in one post. This thread is par for the course for him.

Only recently. Only recently.

[natty dread]

Assuming ANYTHING is a pretty poor scientific approach.

Ultimately, some assumptions have to be made, since we can never have 100% absolute proof of anything.

Most scientists, contrary to Nightstrike's beliefs, actually are people of faith

Can we see some statistics of this? I find this hard to believe, unless you stretch the definition of "scientist" by a fair margin...

[Lootifer]

Of course science is true: it was designed by God. However, human interpretations of science are not always correct.

On this, I absolutely agree with Nightstrike.

Insisting that anyone of faith is an idiot who does not understand science is beneath you pimpdave... and such attitudes do nothing to advance knowledge or understanding.

You obviously haven't read enough of pimpdave's posts. Pimpdave hates conservatives, hates Christians, and will go out of his way to post slander about either, especially if he can slander both in one post. This thread is par for the course for him.

Heh, there is another option, but I guess you'd probably find that even more distastful.

[Lootifer]

Can we see some statistics of this? I find this hard to believe, unless you stretch the definition of "scientist" by a fair margin...

Eh most of the world is still religious you know? Something like 17% in the US are in the category of non-religious. That covers everything from apathy (dont care) to active athiesm. Still a pretty small secotr of society.

[john9blue]

people like NS are just like the straw men that atheists make, whenever they debate someone like me.

Man itd be sweet if you were as smart as you thought you were. Youd be able to solve all the worlds problems n shit.

many intelligent people have already solved many of the world's problems.

the hard part is always convincing the world that you have the answer.

[Lootifer]

people like NS are just like the straw men that atheists make, whenever they debate someone like me.

Man itd be sweet if you were as smart as you thought you were. Youd be able to solve all the worlds problems n shit.

many intelligent people have already solved many of the world's problems.

the hard part is always convincing the world that you have the answer.

The funniest bit is i actually think you're serious

[Juan_Bottom]

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

[PLAYER57832]

Assuming ANYTHING is a pretty poor scientific approach.

Ultimately, some assumptions have to be made, since we can never have 100% absolute proof of anything.

Its a sematic question. Of course, there are times when you have to set parameters and that might mean specifying some assumptions. However, they have to be defined, they become part of the "test". Saying "we have to assume "a", because we just cannot test it" is different from saying that you assume something ... and that it does not need to be questioned or tested. What I mean is that a good scientist will try to frame a study so that the question of a or b (or c, d, e, f...) in such a case is nuetral. If that is not possible, then generally the study won't be a fully reliable scientific study.

When it comes to evolution, whether God is manipulating genes or it is some other process/combination of processes, is just not something scientists can determine. They can determine how changes happen over time and to some extent the direct physical mechanisms, but that's it. When scientists begin to try and claim "we have an explanation".."therefore no God"... it is when they leave science and go to religion themselves.

Most scientists, contrary to Nightstrike's beliefs, actually are people of faith

Can we see some statistics of this? I find this hard to believe, unless you stretch the definition of "scientist" by a fair margin...[/quote]

Ironically enough, there was just a study published on this very question.
Here is an article that discusses it:
http://www.annarbor.com/faith/science-v ... s-beliefs/

Here is the study referenced: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195392982

[Haggis_McMutton]

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

great quote.
I find it's a good rule of thumb that when you're 100% certain of something, it might be time to re-examine it.

[john9blue]

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

unless you are an agnostic, you have no right to be posting that quote.

"the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

[Symmetry]

Assuming ANYTHING is a pretty poor scientific approach.

Ultimately, some assumptions have to be made, since we can never have 100% absolute proof of anything.

No, then it steps outside of science and becomes belief.

Now.. in some cases, it is OK to set certain parameters. If those parameters are defined, then they become part of the "test". However, that is not strictly an assumption.

Most scientists, contrary to Nightstrike's beliefs, actually are people of faith

Can we see some statistics of this? I find this hard to believe, unless you stretch the definition of "scientist" by a fair margin...

Ironically enough, there was just a study published on this very question.
Here is an article that discusses it:
http://www.annarbor.com/faith/science-v ... s-beliefs/

Here is the study referenced: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/s ... 0195392982[/quote]

Does this mean that you no longer consider atheism to be a faith? Sorry to butt in, but you seem to be taking a kind of different stance on whether atheism is a faith or not here compared to previous discussions.

[PLAYER57832]

Does this mean that you no longer consider atheism to be a faith? Sorry to butt in, but you seem to be taking a kind of different stance on whether atheism is a faith or not here compared to previous discussions.

No. I was being lazy. Good catch.

That said, while atheism is a faith belief, it is not generally a "religion", though there are religions that are atheistic (I think scientology is one???). And.. I think I did specify religion, not just beliefs/faith.

[Juan_Bottom]

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

unless you are an agnostic, you have no right to be posting that quote.

"the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

Don't you remember when I tested you? And you believed that I had impregnated you with worm-sperm? What you need, is to try reading some literature on this subject. Multiple people have buried the agnostic argument, including you, by happenstance of not catching my trap. Dawkins did a whole chapter on this in his book "the Demon Haunted World." Even the first Agnostic (Huxley) was likely just trying to find a more sensitive way of fracturing religious adherence in common science.

"the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

Why?

[john9blue]

Don't you remember when I tested you? And you believed that I had impregnated you with worm-sperm? What you need, is to try reading some literature on this subject. Multiple people have buried the agnostic argument, including you, by happenstance of not catching my trap. Dawkins did a whole chapter on this in his book "the Demon Haunted World." Even the first Agnostic (Huxley) was likely just trying to find a more sensitive way of fracturing religious adherence in common science.

"the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing"

Why?

i don't recall this trap. why don't you try it?