Your problem is you're assuming faith and science are mutually exclusive.
45 comments
I think you missed the point of the maggot experiment, if you're referring to the study I think you are. Francesco Redi's experiment proved that the appearance of maggots on rotting meat never occured if the meat was kept isolated from flies. In other words, it proved that maggots came from flies, not the meat itself.
Science changes its mind all the time based on new information, unlike religion, which attempts to invent unsupported and bizarre hypotheses to fit the new information to a preconceived conclusion. Science is completely objective, which is why no one person can claim the truth unless they can convince highly knowledgable experts and counter skeptics' legitimate objections.
"Your problem is you're assuming faith and science are mutually exclusive." are mutually exclusive, it's not an assumption. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Science is the process of gathering evidence, and then formulating a testable hypothesis to explain a natural phenomenan.
If something is based on faith, then, by definition, it is unscientifc. Likewise, if it is based on scientific principles, it is not, in any way, based on faith.
You fail.
Science looks at the evidence and forms a hypothesis from that evidence. Faith, through religion, looks at the Bible and tries to make the evidence fit that, usually quite miserably. Yeah, I see your point. Exactly the same.
"Your problem is you're assuming faith and science are mutually exclusive."Your problem is assuming that faith is worth a damn.
"I am a science nut and I beleive in ID."
Almost right! You're a nut and you believe in ID.
"I believe evidince supports ID."
Please show several pieces of credible, peer-reviewed evidence which support ID.
"Really most of the "evidence" displayed by both sides can just go either way."
No. As much as you may wish it was so, it is not. There are mountains of good solid evidence supporting the ToE and essentially no evidence at all supporting ID.
"Science is not objective and evidence will be used to support whatever you're trying to prove whether is really does or not."
That is true for ID/creationism, but true scientists folow the evidence wherever it leads.
"Keep in mind that science "proved" that maggots are made of rotting meat, radiation water is good for you, and "global warming" would raise the water levels (You probably disagree with me about that, but let's discuss it on another thread)."
I do not know anything about your maggot assertion nor your "radiation water" assertion, though I suspect both are very spurious claims. One of the best features of true science is that everything is always subject to peer-review, and reassessment is possible whenever better evidence becomes available. "Scientists" working on ID, on the other hand, have already determined their final answer and that is not subject to question.
You're right, I do disagree with you about global warming, and so do almost every credible scientist on earth. No amount of wishful thinking will make it go away, Sho-Re.
I assume that radiation thing is in reference to such things as occurred in the very early 20th century when the X ray tube and similar devices were first invented. Charlatans went all over the place blasting people with deadly radiation, cashing in on the public's ill-informed wonder at this magical new device that could see through your body. One must of course realise that, because X ray generators were brand new, and symptoms of radiation poisoning take ages to manifest, there was no knowledge or literature about the dangers of the devices even among the scientific community at that point. Even if there was, however, the public was generally far more ill-informed about science and technology back then than it is today (simply because there was no reliable delivery system for such knowledge. No electronic communication, and printed scientific journals were, and still are, for the most part, hellishly expensive), and even today quacks make a tidy profit selling shit like "energised water" to people who, these days at least, have no excuse not to read around and know better.
It just breaks my heart when people like this truly think they are great fans of science, when in fact they are its worst enemies, spreading disinformation and misinterpreting even the most basic functions and tenets of science.
Science is objective, as objective as the fact that YOU DON´T SEE SPEAKING SNAKES,for God´s sake. By the way, LOVECRAFT and LEFT BEHIND is not science.
Objective (adj) -findings are nonscientific and therefore you can't say that science is non-objective.
b. Science is not based on observable phenomena.
...Well, considering you think ancient mythology is grounds for scientific theory, you might agree with that, but the scientific method disagrees.
Tempus wrote:"and "global warming" would raise the water levels
Meltwater from the north polar icecap wouldn't. Melting water from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would. Whether those ice sheets are melting is up for debate."
Okay, this is off-topic, but...
Artic ice is mostly freshwater, it is less dense than seawater, hence the volume of seawater it displaces (i.e. one with equal mass ) is smaller than the volume of freshwater it makes.
Theoretically it also contributes to sea-level rise... by about 5 centimetres.
;-)
Ignorant, yes. But is this really fundie? Even if he doesn't have a clue about real science, he's not dismissing it as a 'tool of the devil', so I don't think he qualifies as a particular fundie with this view, personally.
"I am a science nut and I beleive in ID. I believe evidince supports ID."
Where were you in late 2005 when the defence team in Kitzmiller vs. Dover needed you, then? Michael Behe is not only a scientist, he's a Professor of Biochemistry, no less.
Yet it was his 'objective' evidence & testimony in KvD, that completely annihilated the defence's case, thus Judge John E. Jones III - a Christian Conservative himself - ruling for the plaintiffs, which resulted in the teaching of 'I.D.' in US schools becoming illegal & unconstitutional.
Evolution is fact . Creationism is lies . The law says so.
Deal with it.
"I am a science nut and I beleive in ID "
And apparently disbelieve in global warming as well. In other words, you are a liar.
Oh yes, you're a nut all right. You don't seem to have the slightest inkling of what "science" really is.
BEFORE science investigated it, people thought that maggots are made of rotting meat, yes.
Global climate change IS raising the water levels. There's no "would" about it, stupid, it's an ongoing fact.
Your problem is you're assuming faith and science are mutually exclusive.
True. However, ID and science are mutually exclusive. And science is objective. That's sort-of the whole point of it.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
