Yeah!!

--
They're cross with youuu.
~Luthrai

"And I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad, That the dreams in which I'm dying, Are the best I've ever had."
~Tears for Fears "Mad World"

Man, I think this was needed. As a non-religious person, I think that both sides should understand that rather than trying to use science as an all around debunking faith machine or using faith as a means to show how science is wrong because it isn't according to x religious text. There's nothing more cringe-worthy than watching a so-called skeptic using science to bolster their argument because they think it's got no wrong, and when they obviously don't understand what they're even talking about. It's right up there with "atheists" who claim that their views aren't a religion, because when I hear them talk they really don't sound that much different from dogmatic religious people. For me, it's more unnerving because inevitably I get camped with those people. I can understand how things might not work for personal logic, a lot of tenets surrounding faith really conflict with mine, but I don't see how I can say that my way of thinking is right...that's implying that my reasoning ihas god-like infallibility.

Quite honestly, I think the two subjects, faith and science, should remain separate since they mostly deal with two different things. I think that people should also try to learn about both to try to understand, even if they don't agree. On either side, there's always going to be a shade of "well, it mightn't be true" or "we might be wrong", but of course the whole point of faith is to believe something despite the two aforementioned.

Unfortunately, I also can't use stamps. =/

You can't? Oh, right. Not subscribed.

Yeah, I'm sick of Christians feeling threatened by things like the theory of Macro Evolution. Similarly, I'm sick of the "atheist" side treating me like an idiot because I believe in the Bible. Both behave in an equal infantile manner, IMHO.

Frankly, I think the Creationist/Intelligent Design camp is barking up the wrong tree. Instead of Intelligent Design being taught too, they should be lobbying for the scientific method to be taught properly in the first place. I mean, really, how useful is it for kids to memorize factoids so they can spit them back out on paper? All you're teaching them is to accept that someone has already explained the universe for them and they should sit down and shut up. How's that education?

--
"Sometimes a mistake is like wearing white after Labour Day, and sometimes a mistake is invading Russia in winter." - Alan Burnside

Read my webcomic at jaadrih.comicgenesis.com!

hear hear!

--
"You must be the worst artist I have ever heard of."
"AH! but you HAVE heard of me"

THANK YOU! These are things I've been waiting to hear for a long time. I'm totally using this.

--
I may not be perfect, but Jesus thinks I'm to die for.

Yeah, it really annoys me when I see the so-called atheists doing that, because there's nothing in science alone that denies that things in the Bible (or for that matter any religious text) to be true. But then again, to these people science is their religion. Equally though, I have a problem with taking every single word of a religious text to be literally true as well. I mean, the Bible for instance has been around for thousands of years and interpretations of just that one text has changed numerous times over the years as human understanding of the world changes, so why can't this be the same? And in my (admittedly probably very ignorant) mind, I've never really understood why the two can't co-exist? I mean I've talked with Bible literalists about it, but it still leaves me sort of baffled...but this may be due to the fact that the supernatural and the natural are really separate in my mind returning again to the fact that science can only deal with observations of the natural world.

I agree that the Creationists/Intelligent Design camp aren't really being too wise about what their campaigning for. But I sort of get the feeling that they'd rather trade off having one set of factoids to spit out on paper for two? If I were them, I would really want to know how science comes to its conclusions since one would/should probably have to use those same methods to come to a different conclusion. It seems to me (from papers that I've read, and I may be speaking in ignorance of more recent studies) that rather than trying to explain an alternate conclusion from gathered/gathering evidence they're really just quibbling over certain conclusions that the rest of the scientific community has come to. I mean, if you're going to be postulating that all creatures were created in one fell swoop that's going to affect not just biology, but geology and physics as well. And one really doesn't need to look to fossils to see how it will be a problem, even among present animals it's going to have to deal with the difference and potential non-differences of species and I'm not certain that simply redefining our idea of species is going to change the issues that come up. How would you define horses and donkeys as being the same species if what they produce is not sterile, if you were to do that? What would you do with an animal that is concluded to be two separate species but can produce viable offspring? Although that in itself would be an interesting experiment, what happens if you isolate two groups of the same creature, would they remain one species or become two?

And, quite honestly, if one doesn't go about trying to see how a theory fits within scientific methods, then the entire system is going to come crashing down, and that would only be a good thing if it can explain those things that have been proven to true according to the tests as well as those theories that are (even by the science community) said to be a theory that has thusfar been only been proven true by current evidence. I'd much rather not have what we utilise everyday for convenience and survival to be turned into a broken system where we can't even explain how we came to those conclusions.

And heck, science is probably one of the easier things to get children interested in because they can use things to work out theories for themselves! And here I go rambling, because I really like discussing things like this. It makes my mind work. XD

...Of course science isn't infallible.

That's *why* it's science.

If science isn't always trying to prove itself wrong, if the status quo is accepted, it's not science, it's stagnation.

It's the things that never want to accept they're wrong, the people that never question if something *is* wrong, those are the problem, whether they're on side A or side 2 of issue Gamma.

You must learn to tell the difference between Science, and Non-Science.

[link]

I was trying to find the part that just had them compare and contrast science and pseudo-science, but I cannot seem to find it. So skip till about the last 3rd of the movie.



See if someone says it's been proven they must be able to show physical proof of it, invoking the supernatural doesn't apply because science can only study the physical world. And never in history has blaming the supernatural even increased our understanding about anything.

The problem is that the people saying "Science" proves there religion just says how honest they are. Science has nothing to say on the supernatural, therefore cannot say god exists or doesn't exist. Though science can prove the bible wrong because it has to do with the physical world.