StarGateWars Forums

Again, its not about "truth".

Its about certain set standards.


The "ultimate truth and its viablity" is the last bastion of the ID defense when confronted with the fact it falls short of "miniman ascensiol requrements" to join science.

Nobody gives a toss about what anyone believes. Its irrelevant to this dicussion. (inclusion in science class)

Reread the bolded part a couple of times and let it sink in.

I really couldn't care less about how humans and other animals came into being, whether they were created by God, created by God via proxy of evolution, or just randomly appeared.


The discussion of inclusion in science class is pointless, as to those who dictate the policies on that, it is relevant what people believe to be the truth. What, you thought there were scientists who decide what gets taught and what is not? Tssk tssk. It's just a few fanatics who screw the whole education system. And they are allowed to do so by those who think they should discuss this on a scientific level.
There's no scientific debate of ANY kind possible with religious people. If it seems like it is possible, don't fall for it. It is them, screwing with you.

I love playing the devils advocate.

Brdvas.. I agreed in my opening post that I think religion should be taught in RE and Science in science... and I said both should be open to teaching a more rational ID as a possibility (not as fact) as I believe Science relies heavily on imagination and if it's reduced to a bogged down set of numbers and 'icky' pictures..well.. there just no Je ne ce qua... in that. (I probably spelt that wrong..)

However.. what I have been trying to prove since then... which I am now just going to go ahead and say as I tried to do in one of my earlier post's...

well it's that people all have different beliefs and science is very often, very quick to assault religion and claim it as ultimate fallacy. However I am trying to point out that it's an unwise course of action and they both have their merits and ultimately this bickering from both sides is ridiculous because they're both so heavily important for humanity.

However on these forums and a lot of other places I know of at least (and I used to be one of them) the scientist's are very quick to assault religion as being stupid and I now defend religion because I have matured to the point where I can greatly come to appreciate what it does offer for a lot of people and those people don't need to have empirical theories from ignorant assess thrust in their face.

The debate of Religion VS Science will always end in one way. We don't know J-S and probably never will so as Universe has pointed out... a lot of us are no longer interested in it ergo I turned my baleful attention to trying to teach a few of you lackies a lesson or two in respecting beliefs when adamantly claiming you're right.

As for MY personal beliefs and my theory of ID.. well we're going to have to agree to disagree... because I stand by the fact I have used scientific rigour to come to a conclusion using empirical knowledge from a hypothesis. To me it's no different than seeing the apple drop from the tree and ergo deduce there is gravity. I see the galaxy with it's complex designs as the apple falling from the tree.. I then look at observations on the smaller levels to examine forces (if you will) and then I apply these to larger things. I see man, a supposedly intelligent creature, create complex things. I see the universe this very big complex thing and apply that system to it. Denying it as a creditable theory to me... is the same as saying that when we're not observing something it stops to work that way. I know it has draw backs...I know most things do.. but that's why it's only a theory. I personally am and will always be an agnostic because it's so much easier.

Only way religion gets "attacked" is by people insisting non adherence/acceptance to it is an attack uppon it.

Fact is that we know what science class is *supposed* to be about. Fact is also that there are objecitve standards for what a scientific method is.

Each one of us has a more or less unique and multilayered view of our universe and life. Our views are a mosaic of pieces we gain via several different tools.
"Pure" science is one of them tools.
It`s not the only tool in the toolbox and nobody is saying it should be.

People with a predetermined end result view an agenda to "rig" all the tools so that they would lead to/support their personall conclusion, should however keep their mittens off of the toolbox.


You`re not some extraordinaryly gifted induvidual with opened eyes and broadened mind semper.
You just apparently think you are by being a wind up merchant by sticking to some "extreme" views and calling people who oppose those being represented as something theyre not, of the opposite "extremism" - with you being one of those "rare" sensible ones.

Steady on, dude.

My religion is attacked every time someone walks into a café and blows themselves up. Every time a Taliban member executed a missionary for nothing more than possession of a Bible, that was an attack on my religion. People who do those sorts of things use our "Godlessness" and "Decadence" as vain excuses to kill us. To force us to renounce our own beliefs. That is an attack.

Secondly, scientists often begin with theories and find the most efficient method they can to prove them. It happens all the time. In fact, I'd offer the opinion that that is how most research is carried out. You form a Hypothesis, then you set about proving it. A conclusion is not necessarily the discovery of a concept, it can also be the end result of an investigation, the proof.

The idea of "purity" in sciences is ludicrous. As a sociologist, I can definitely appreciate qualitative sciences. The idea that a science has to provide definite and indisputable answers in order to be valid is narrow minded, to say the least. Exact sciences, like mathematics, exist as exact sciences because that is how man created them. They were created as tools to help further understand concepts that man had been pondering for countless generations beforehand. Observation and interpretation taught prehistoric man for millennia before mathematics was developed.

I think Semper is being perfectly reasonable. I think some others are not quite getting the question.

And Bin Laden/talibans viewed the 60-100k US army personell on holly muslim soil of SA (coupled with US politics) an attack on their religion that spurred them on to 9/11.
Are you gonna stick to your guns that religious sentiment should be miticolously payed heed? Thought so.

There are standards set everywhere.
Youre not christian if you dont believe in J.C., and youre not science if you dont adhere to the scientific method.

What more is there to honestly say?



And you cant equate a scientific hypothesis with the ID assumption or any other "guess". I stated numerous times why, I`m not getting into that again.



If these things offend you as a religious man, you shouldnt be so easily offended.
Honestly, like spoiled kids. You dont tollerate others in your cookie jary yet you`re supposed to have dibbs on everyone elses.
And everytime someone objects that yor hand doesnt actually fit in there its an "attack on god".
What god probably finds offensive is how posseisve, single tracked and narrowminded his children are.
He gave you the capacity to learn of his creation, and what do you do, you try to sully the tools you are to achive it with.

Trying to pass off ID as science is the golden calf of modern age if you ask me. Faith as such is no longer enough. It *has* to be science, nomatter the cost. And we`ll cut corners her & there just to get to it.

I was offended by the inference that Semper is narrow minded.

You examples are sound. From the other side of the fence, Western troop presence is indeed an insult to their beliefs. That is sound logic.

If by "paid heed" you mean that our beliefs should be considered with an open mind, then yes I do belief heed should be paid. I am not going to be the man who criticises people for having different spiritual beliefs to my own. I never have. All I have asked is that people keep an open mind, and reserve absolute conclusions to premises that are clearly beyond dispute.

I do adhere to "the scientific method". As a sociologist, I adhere to the methods set down for studying in that discipline. It just so happens that my science has a heavy reliance on interpretation and explanation as part of its conceptual frameworks. We use other scientific tools to highlight certain concepts and operationalise abstract ideas into measurable criteria. ID works the same way. It is a way of explaining something. It may not be an absolute truth, but it should be offered as an alternate theory. To omit alternate theories because they are attached to an ideology we do not support is narrow minded.

I don't think ID is a guess. It has some scientific merit. I think about Einstein's theory of relativity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the theory claims that matter cannot generate enough energy, in relation to its mass, to travel faster than light. His this been proven? Has man propelled an object at light-speed finding that it has exhausted all the energy the object is capable of harnessing? Has man reached the limits of the amount of energy it can draw from matter? No. That is why the Theory of Relativity is a theory. ID is also a theory. It has not been conclusively proven or disproven. It does still warrant consideration.

As for these "tools", I gather you mean science. These tools are of our own creation. If anything, we are sullying the tools we ourselves created to understand a universe we did not. I am not offended as a religious man at all. You are entitled to your opinion. Others are entitled to voice theirs, and to have them safe from being dismissed purely because of their source.

I'm not going to say that ID is the answer. I just don't want to see it, or any theory, dismissed until it has received fair and rigorous scrutiny.

By pay heed I mean adapt just to accomodate. And twasnt I that started throwing out adjectives either.

I dont get it why it allways boils down to not allegedly dismissing it and keeping a closed mind.

I dont discount the notion, I really dont.

I`m just not prepared to give it the same qualitative assesment than scientific theories, and have them equated in science class. Not as long as the criteria arent met.

Einsteins theory has credence cos it`s been proven correct in every so far testable situation. ID by default has no testable situation. It doesnt even attempt to test its ideas in the natural world from which it draws its observations.
So there *is* still a difference even when neither can be definivitly confirmed or disproven.

doesnt mean I dismiss the notion alltogether thoe. But I don` t think warp field theory is as relative as the general theory of relativity based on the lack of proof to the contrary either.
Thats the reason I hink ID is a matter of faith and not science. Cos it offers nothing, just asks for leap of faith/"an opened mind".
I`m okay with that as long as we recognise it for what it is.

Brdavs wrote:You`re not some extraordinaryly gifted induvidual with opened eyes and broadened mind semper.
You just apparently think you are by being a wind up merchant by sticking to some "extreme" views and calling people who oppose those being represented as something theyre not, of the opposite "extremism" - with you being one of those "rare" sensible ones.

I don't think I am extraordinary...all I am doing is trying to point out that there is no right or wrong answer and that it's empirical thinkers, not religious types more often then not in modern days trying to dogmatically push their point of view because they're so adamant they're right.

Some of the posts you've made to me have had you in one way or another implying science is superior and that you're right and you know better than me and the beliefs I was defending...it was the same with Unseen and Kit-fox earlier in the thread.... fact is...you're very likely not right... and neither am I... so claiming you are and saying I cannot do something with something so fundamental to my personal being.. boggles my mind.

Now.. I am done here.

Science is superrior. In science class. Well it should be anyways.

Radiance wrote:I really couldn't care less about how humans and other animals came into being, whether they were created by God, created by God via proxy of evolution, or just randomly appeared.


The discussion of inclusion in science class is pointless, as to those who dictate the policies on that, it is relevant what people believe to be the truth. What, you thought there were scientists who decide what gets taught and what is not? Tssk tssk. It's just a few fanatics who screw the whole education system. And they are allowed to do so by those who think they should discuss this on a scientific level.
There's no scientific debate of ANY kind possible with religious people. If it seems like it is possible, don't fall for it. It is them, screwing with you.

Define "Religious people" please

Jedi~Tank wrote:Define "Religious people" please

re·li·gious (rĭ-lĭj'əs) pronunciation

Home > Library > Literature & Language > Dictionary
adj.

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

n., pl., religious.
A member of a monastic order, especially a nun or monk.


Google is your friend. <3

Removed

Unless your god: then you can make something out nothing.

right, sandman