|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:02 am
well, that depends on how you define scientist..... I don't think a degree is a necessary condition to be a scientist. And attacking Mendel's credibility? s**t the dude is practically the epitome of the scientific method. Who cares if he has a theology degree instead of science?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:48 am
GUEST well, that depends on how you define scientist..... I don't think a degree is a necessary condition to be a scientist. And attacking Mendel's credibility? s**t the dude is practically the epitome of the scientific method. Who cares if he has a theology degree instead of science? 1. we do not know how much he actually knew about science 2. please try to not swear on these forums
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:52 pm
Darwin can be considered a scientist based on the grounds that he not only made a discovery in the world around him (which is one of the two forms of science which are Observation and Hypothesis-based), but he proposed a scientific theory stating a brand new idea in the scientific community. Secondly, a degree in theology, was usually a must in most universities throughout the time, and it does not necessarily imply that your work later on in llife wiill be based off of theology. Even Friedrich Nietzsche, the atheist philosopher who proclamied that "God is dead" had a degree in theology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:32 am
Alucard1057 Darwin can be considered a scientist based on the grounds that he not only made a discovery in the world around him (which is one of the two forms of science which are Observation and Hypothesis-based), but he proposed a scientific theory stating a brand new idea in the scientific community. Secondly, a degree in theology, was usually a must in most universities throughout the time, and it does not necessarily imply that your work later on in llife wiill be based off of theology. Even Friedrich Nietzsche, the atheist philosopher who proclaimed that "God is dead" had a degree in theology. good call although one of my favorite theories is that science IS a form of religion. Think about it. Most of us will never be in a position to verify anything we learn in science class. We are forced to accept the word of a "priest like" class of elites on faith. I've never seen an atom....have you? When is the last time you popped on down to the nearest electron scanning microscope to see if what the knowledgeable seeming scientist said is true? And would you even be able to interpret the information without the science education if you did?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:27 pm
It is my present belief that we have almost everything wrong in the science department, very small portions of "science" can actually be proven, as I similarily belief that every religion has at least 2 things wrong with it, and even more wrong in how they explain the history of the human race.
Personally I don't even believe in this thing people call "time"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:27 pm
One of the major differences between science and religion, however, is that scientists can demonstrate their knowledge. You might not have seen an atom, but we know that the atomic bomb is real, and nuclear power plants are real, and that gives us evidence that the scientists didn't just fabricate their model of the atom. You don't see priests offering that kind of evidence for their religion. Science can be demonstrated in the real world, religion can't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:11 pm
Well that depends on what you define as a creation of god now doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:11 pm
invisibleairwaves One of the major differences between science and religion, however, is that scientists can demonstrate their knowledge. You might not have seen an atom, but we know that the atomic bomb is real, and nuclear power plants are real, and that gives us evidence that the scientists didn't just fabricate their model of the atom. You don't see priests offering that kind of evidence for their religion. Science can be demonstrated in the real world, religion can't. sure it can. People now-a-days just judge that proof according to the standards and educational paradigms of the religion of Science rather than with those of another religion. Have you not seen Karma in action? Theistic religions can explain any physical phenomena that are supposedly the domain of science. I personally prefer the religion of science because the explanation of things like the atomic bomb are much more interesting than the theistic religious explanation: "God made the world that way" but that's just my opinion. I still feel that the belief in science satisfies the same need in humans that belief in a theistic religion does, and serves many of the same social purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:51 am
mr_zoot invisibleairwaves One of the major differences between science and religion, however, is that scientists can demonstrate their knowledge. You might not have seen an atom, but we know that the atomic bomb is real, and nuclear power plants are real, and that gives us evidence that the scientists didn't just fabricate their model of the atom. You don't see priests offering that kind of evidence for their religion. Science can be demonstrated in the real world, religion can't. sure it can. People now-a-days just judge that proof according to the standards and educational paradigms of the religion of Science rather than with those of another religion. Have you not seen Karma in action? Theistic religions can explain any physical phenomena that are supposedly the domain of science. I personally prefer the religion of science because the explanation of things like the atomic bomb are much more interesting than the theistic religious explanation: "God made the world that way" but that's just my opinion. I still feel that the belief in science satisfies the same need in humans that belief in a theistic religion does, and serves many of the same social purposes. Proof is judged according to scientific paragdims because there are no other paragdims. No religion offers a way of evaluating proof, apart from "Does this conflict with my previously held beliefs? If so, it is untrue." I have not seen Karma in action. Bad things often happen to good people, and good things often happen to bad people. Sometimes it goes the other way around. It's random chance, not some cosmic force. Theistic religions can try to explain the phenomena, but they cannot demonstrate it. That was the point of my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:48 am
Can science demonstrate that what they know is 100% true?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:47 am
Twizted Humanitarian Can science demonstrate that what they know is 100% true? nope. Few true scientists will give a 100 percent explanation on anything. A flat out causal relationship is very hard to come by. Even time honored science "laws" like the laws of thermodynamics are being re-examined. Nobody has been able to explain gravity yet. invisibleairwaves Proof is judged according to scientific paragdims because there are no other paragdims. No religion offers a way of evaluating proof, apart from "Does this conflict with my previously held beliefs? If so, it is untrue." No other paradigms? uhh, yeah there are...ignoring them doesn't make them go away. I personally look at the world from a rather scientific lens, but I understand that there are many who do not. I think your characterization of religion is quite an oversimplification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:59 pm
Richard Dawkins once described religion as being the worship of gaps. Any hole in the knowledge of man would be filled with the prescence of God/gods etc. I take this to be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:50 am
While you may have a point I look at it this way...
Maybe we evolved from a single celled organism.
How did the organism get there?
Perhaps from an asteroid collision with earth.
What sent the asteroid moving?
The big bang, or as some are now saying the big bounce.
What created the big bang?
The incineration of cosmic dust.
How did the dust get there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:01 am
It takes faith to believe we're here by chance. It takes faith to believe we were created by God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
