15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[Indeependent]

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.

Why can't I believe in both?

You can believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.

 

[ding]

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.

Yes, the complexity and interconnections are staggering; mind blowing even.

 

[ding]

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.

Why can't I believe in both?

You can believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.

Why would it need to do that?

I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

 

[ding]

One hardly should believe in things just because they cannot be disproven.

Agreed. In fact believing something without ever examining what one believes is the worst thing one can do if he is seeking truth. Many people criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. This is called critical theory and they don't even know they are doing it. They think this is normal. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.

 

[Indeependent]

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.

Why can't I believe in both?

You can believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.

Why would it need to do that?

I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

You are discussing the chuch-mah (wisdom, or thought) of the Creator, who then Made the raw material and then Formed it into perfection.
Yes, since the Creator is not bound by time, everything that exists always exists in parallel with every form that the Creator willed.

 

[ding]

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.

Why can't I believe in both?

You can believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.

Why would it need to do that?

I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

You are discussing the chuch-mah (wisdom, or thought) of the Creator, who then Made the raw material and then Formed it into perfection.
Yes, since the Creator is not bound by time, everything that exists always exists in parallel with every form that the Creator willed.

My perception is that it was willed into existence. As near as I can tell the universe is an intelligence creating machine.

 

[ding]

... What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism

Nothing.



In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

It is useless to me because it is a fairy tale story, nothing more.

So you don't believe the universe began?

 

[Indeependent]

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.

Why can't I believe in both?

You can believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.

Why would it need to do that?

I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

You are discussing the chuch-mah (wisdom, or thought) of the Creator, who then Made the raw material and then Formed it into perfection.
Yes, since the Creator is not bound by time, everything that exists always exists in parallel with every form that the Creator willed.

My perception is that it was willed into existence. As near as I can tell the universe is an intelligence creating machine.

The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.

 

[luchitociencia]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

False. It was called "evolution" because the pioneers of this theory thought that the modern species are better, more complex and superior and come from former species which were worst, more simpler and inferior.

You call yourself an evolutionist and you are still a complete ignorant of what your theory is about in reality. Lol.

Tell me, because theories of science are to make predictions, looking at the present of our species and assuming a slow change in the environment going warmer, what parts of the human body will evolve in the future? How they will evolve?

If you are right, then answer.

Ha ha ha ha.

 

[luchitociencia]

The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.

Show time. I want to see its flowing.

I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.

 

[Indeependent]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

False. It was called "evolution" because the pioneers of this theory thought that the modern species are better, more complex and superior and come from former species which were worst, more simpler and inferior.

You call yourself an evolutionist and you are still a complete ignorant of what your theory is about in reality. Lol.

Tell me, because theories of science are to make predictions, looking at the present of our species and assuming a slow change in the environment going warmer, what parts of the human body will evolve in the future? How they will evolve?

If you are right, then answer.

Ha ha ha ha.

We grew arms over a 100,000,000,000 year period because we knew we would have the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Indeependent]

The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.

Show time. I want to see its flowing.

I'll love to see how far your ignorance has made you reach the limits of the absurd.

It's called Torah study.
I can read Hebrew; you can't.
I will not denigrate your beliefs.

 

[ding]

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.

Why can't I believe in both?

You can believe in both if your belief is that evolution does not exclude God's intervention.

Why would it need to do that?

I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

You are discussing the chuch-mah (wisdom, or thought) of the Creator, who then Made the raw material and then Formed it into perfection.
Yes, since the Creator is not bound by time, everything that exists always exists in parallel with every form that the Creator willed.

My perception is that it was willed into existence. As near as I can tell the universe is an intelligence creating machine.

The universe is already over as God is outside time and space.

So this conversation isn't actually happening?

I believe you are looking at it the wrong way. As God is outside of space and time God experiences space and time all at once. Think of it this way, God has an infinite amount of time to spend on anything. That's what it means to be outside of space and time.

 

[zaangalewa]

... What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism

Nothing.



In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

It is useless to me because it is a fairy tale story, nothing more.

And what about if you are your own fairy tale story, who you tells everyone a story about the self made fairy tale "I"? Isn't it much more fascinating what my comrades sang thousands of years ago on their campfires? What had they understood if someone had said to them "... And god said: Let there be electromagnetic waves. And god saw the electromagntic waves, that it was good: and God divided the electromagnetic waves from the darkness ..." ... So what do you understand today really about your world, which would not be the same, if not thousands of years someone had written down this words? "And god saw it was good what he had done" is one of the most important keys to understand what's really written there.

And by the way: "Seven miles boots" do we call today "automobiles". You should perhaps start to think about why you hate spirituality - and you should perhaps also think about, why you are disrespecting fairy tales.

If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.
Albert Einstein

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.

Creationism is unfalsifiable. The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?

When you say, "That magic wand isn't real! It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.

Ha ha ha, you don't realize that creationists have for a while tried to have their unprovable belief be taught in the public schools. They LOST, yet still try anyway, despite that it isn't science, it is religion.

30 years after Edwards v. Aguillard: Why creationism lingers in public schools
John E. Taylor
Professor of Law, West Virginia University

June 23, 2017

Excerpt:

This month marks the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, a groundbreaking case that ruled it unconstitutional to require creationism to be taught in public schools.

Though much has changed in 30 years, the broad questions raised by this case remain timely. Who gets to decide what knowledge will be transmitted to the next generation – parents? Elected officials? Academic experts? What role (if any) should the courts play in policing such decisions?

As a scholar of education law and First Amendment law, I’ve seen these very questions animate curricular controversies over climate change, American history, and more.

While recent debates seem to share a common structure with controversies about the teaching of evolution, there’s a key difference: Edwards v. Aguillard stands not for the broad idea that it’s unconstitutional for public schools to teach “bad science,” but for the narrower idea that it’s unconstitutional for them to teach religion as truth.

LINK

I don't realize this? Crazy. How did I miss it? Was a living under a rock for, I don't know, all of the 38 years of my life?

I didn't say that arguing to keep creationism out of science classes was a moot point. I said that disproving creationism with science is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE, and people who claim to champion science ought to understand that you can't apply scientific argument to unfalsifiable ideas.

If you want to keep creationism out of schools and technical decision making, the logical argument to make would be that it isn't objective or scientific specifically BECAUSE it's unfalsifiable, rather than trying to bypass that obvious impediment by bastardizing the very concept of scientific inquiry in your crusade to defend science.

One hardly should believe in things just because they cannot be disproven.
That's the reason for the Pastafarianism/The Flying Spaghetti Monster which also cannot be "disproven."

YOU CAN'T PROVE I'M NOT GOD.
That does not give ANY weight to the claim I am.
Got it now?
You're posing Junior High semantics, not logic.

And even for that shallow claim, we know specific creation Myths are false.
Indeed at least 75% of Religions are wrong even if One of their creations myths is correct.
Further, a literal reading of Genesis creation version is demonstrably ridiculous. As is Adam and Eve.

`
``

I'm posting junior high semantics? Lol, read it again genius. You're dropping HS atheism debate points to argue with a point I never made.

Lemme make this real simple for you. Using science to disprove something that is unfalsifiable exposes a fundamental misunderstanding of what science even is. I'm not saying that to make the point that I believe in some particular God story because it can't be disproven. I'm saying it so that monkeys like you will stop making pointless arguments. If someone wants to put creation into science class, point out that creationism is unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific and move on with your life.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...

Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.

But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.

But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.

Internal falsifiability is all fine and good, but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion. The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings. If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science. That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.

I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!" kids would give it a fuckin' rest. It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting, the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.

If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING truth, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

False. It was called "evolution" because the pioneers of this theory thought that the modern species are better, more complex and superior and come from former species which were worst, more simpler and inferior.

You call yourself an evolutionist and you are still a complete ignorant of what your theory is about in reality. Lol.

Tell me, because theories of science are to make predictions, looking at the present of our species and assuming a slow change in the environment going warmer, what parts of the human body will evolve in the future? How they will evolve?

If you are right, then answer.

Ha ha ha ha.

In all fairness the evolution theory doesn't imply that the species living today are superior to the species that preceded them. If you go back far enough, according to said theory, you'll find much simpler life, but past a certain point it's not about whether more complex is better, or even whether the species that are alive now survived due to "superiority" to the species that came before them, but rather that the species currently thriving at any given time are simply the ones equipped most appropriately for the current environmental paradigms, all of which are temporary and sometimes shift rapidly and violently.

Essentially, as far as most evolutionary theorists are concerned, humans aren't here because our ancestors won out over the dinosaurs. Those big bastards wiped their asses with our ancestors. Humans are here because a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs, and our ancestors, while hiding from said dinosaurs, managed to survive the fallout.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...

Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.

But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.

But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.

Internal falsifiability is all fine and good,

It's not fine and good - it's the criterion for an ideology - a closed system of thoughts.

but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion.

A discussion "science vs religion" alias "philosophy vs spirituality" is not a discussion about easily comparable things.

The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings. If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science. That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.

The methods of natural science are a product of the philosophy empirism. Is empirism the same like the creator god, who made more than only this, what is able to be a subject of empirism?

I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!"

Hä? ... ah sorry: Eh? ... The belief in atheism is not a very interesting belief. I call atheists normally people, who don't believe to believe.

kids would give it a fuckin' rest.

Kids? And the F-word? ... Can it be you have not a big idea about how to educate children? ... And what have children now to do with your ideas about your atheism and your ideas about anti-atheists?

It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting,

You try to tell people they play a wrong game, because you don't like their rules?

the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.

And? If Tennis players play with a football and have fun ... who cares?

If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.

Natural science is a method to find what are the [mathematical] laws in the nature and what's right or wrong in this context. If we find a natural law on Earth then this natural law is the same in the Andromeda galaxy and every other place and time of the universe.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...

Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.

But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.

But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.

Internal falsifiability is all fine and good,

1. It's not fine and good - it's the criterion for an ideology - a closed system of thoughts.

but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion.

2. A discussion "science vs religion" alias "philosophy vs spiritualiy" is not a discussion about easily comparable things.

The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings. If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science. That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.

3. The methods of natural science are a rpduct of the philosophy empirism. Is empirism the same like the creator god, who made more than only thsi what is able to be subsejct of empirism?

I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!"

4. Hä? ... ah sorry: Eh? ... The belief in atheism is not a very interesting belief. I call atheists normally people, who don't believe to believe.

kids would give it a fuckin' rest.

5. Kids? And the F-word? ... Can it be you have not a big idea about how to educate children? ... And what have children now to do with your ideas about your atheism and your ideas about anti-atheists?

It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting,

6. You try to tell people they play a wrong game, because you don't like their rules?

the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.

7. And? If Tennis players play with a football and have fun ... who cares?

If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.

8. Natural science is a method to find what are the [mathematical] laws in the nature and what's right or wrong in this context. If we find a natural law on Earth then this natural law is the same in the Andromeda galaxy and every other place and time of the universe.

Lol! It's weird to see a response broken down line by line like that, which nonetheless rarely addresses the points made in any of the lines it breaks down. Lemme see if I can clear some of this up for ya. I'm unaware of any quick way to break the format of the post like you did, so I've taken the liberty of numbering each line in the "quote", and I'll use corresponding numbers in my reply.

1. When I said all fine and good, I was dismissing it as irrelevant to any point I was making in the discussion to which you were responding. I wasn't arguing with you about the nature or definition of ideology.

2. Science vs religion is NOT philosophy vs spirituality. Philosophy is not science. Science is a method of testing hypotheses through experimentation. Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable. Mind you, I'm not trying to downplay the importance of philosophy, or to imply the superiority of science over any of these other concepts. However, philosophy and science are NOT synonymous. And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make. One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs.

3. No, empiricism is not like the creator god, assuming for the sake of argument that there is, in fact, a creator god. Empiricism is a philosophy, the creator god is a being that created the universe. Quite frankly, this question's answer is so obvious that I'm guessing the meaning got lost somewhere in translation.

4. I think we largely agree, here. I think it's foolish for one to confidently declare that they don't believe in God, even if they believe that to be true. We aren't wired up for not believing in something, and it generally just requires the right circumstances to draw that belief out of someone. It's like they used to say after WWII, there's no atheists in a foxhole.

5. When I said kids, I wasn't literally referring to children. I only used the term to emphasize the immaturity of crusading to prove the stupidly obvious truth that some particular religion isn't scientific. Anyone claiming that their religion is science doesn't understand their religion, and anyone trying to apply science to religion doesn't understand science. And, I gotta tell you, it's awfully presumptuous to think that you can extrapolate someone's understanding of education, from the mere fact that they used "fuck" and "kids" in the same sentence.

6. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like the rules of any game. The tennis/football thing was a metaphor about simply acknowledging when someone is playing a different game than you are, rather than simply playing back at them as though the two different games are at all compatible. Scoring touchdowns against someone who is playing tennis is utterly meaningless, even if they're mistakenly trying to play tennis on your football field. Get it?

7. I'll try and cut you some slack based on English not being your native language, but good lord man, this was obviously a metaphor. If I apply your question back to the point I was illustrating with my metaphor, you're essentially asking me this: If the people who want to teach creationism in science class have a good time doing so, then what's the problem? The problem is that unfalsifiable ideas aren't science and shouldn't be taught as science, regardless of how much fun it is for the creationists.

8. I wouldn't be so confident that the laws of nature are uniform throughout the universe. That's something that we're a long way from being able to verify.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...

Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.

But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.

But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.

Internal falsifiability is all fine and good,

1. It's not fine and good - it's the criterion for an ideology - a closed system of thoughts.

but not at all what I'm discussing, and not relevant to the discussion of science vs religion.

2. A discussion "science vs religion" alias "philosophy vs spiritualiy" is not a discussion about easily comparable things.

The scientific method is PURELY a method of proving hypotheses false to eliminate possibilities and push closer to affirmative understandings. If a hypothesis cannot be disproven through experiment, you're no longer talking science. That ought to be not only sufficient reason to separate the teaching of science from creationism, it ought to be the beginning and end of the entire f'in discussion.

3. The methods of natural science are a rpduct of the philosophy empirism. Is empirism the same like the creator god, who made more than only thsi what is able to be subsejct of empirism?

I simply wish these "I'm an atheist, debate me!"

4. Hä? ... ah sorry: Eh? ... The belief in atheism is not a very interesting belief. I call atheists normally people, who don't believe to believe.

kids would give it a fuckin' rest.

5. Kids? And the F-word? ... Can it be you have not a big idea about how to educate children? ... And what have children now to do with your ideas about your atheism and your ideas about anti-atheists?

It's like there's people trying to play tennis on a football field, and rather than simply explain to them that they're playing their game in the wrong setting,

6. You try to tell people they play a wrong game, because you don't like their rules?

the football players start scoring touchdowns to show the tennis players how inferior tennis is to football.

7. And? If Tennis players play with a football and have fun ... who cares?

If people would simply remember that science is a method for FINDING, and not a synonym OF truth, and certainly not a label to categorize the beliefs and viewpoints of educated/enlightened people, that would go a long way to clear this nonsense up.

8. Natural science is a method to find what are the [mathematical] laws in the nature and what's right or wrong in this context. If we find a natural law on Earth then this natural law is the same in the Andromeda galaxy and every other place and time of the universe.

Lol!

Spooky laughing in the beginning.

It's weird to see a response broken down line by line like that, which nonetheless rarely addresses the points made in any of the lines it breaks down. Lemme see if I can clear some of this up for ya. I'm unaware of any quick way to break the format of the post like you did, so I've taken the liberty of numbering each line in the "quote", and I'll use corresponding numbers in my reply.

1. When I said all fine and good, I was dismissing it as irrelevant to any point

Aha. You think what I say is irrelevant - thatäs why you will not waste time to think about this what I think.

I was making in the discussion to which you were responding. I wasn't arguing with you about the nature or definition of ideology.

Or with other words. You are an fanatics, who tries to speak about something, because you think something about me what has nothing to do with my person.

2. Science vs religion is NOT philosophy vs spirituality. Philosophy is not science.

What's wrong. Physics is a part of natural philosophy for example.

Science is a method of testing hypotheses through experimentation.

Or withother words: The spirituality of physics is mathematics and the god of physics is teh experimaent. But not all sciences are able to make experients. It's for example impossible to make in history experiments. What woudöl be today without Alexander the great? Ignoramus, igorabimus.

Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable.

So what?

Mind you, I'm not trying to downplay the importance of philosophy, or to imply the superiority of science over any of these other concepts. However, philosophy and science are NOT synonymous.

What's again wrong. The mother of all sciences is philosophy.

And that first comparison, science vs religion, IS actually an easy comparison to make.

No.

One is a method of experimentation, the other is a system of beliefs.

What a nonsense. Just a moment ago you said "Philosophy, like religion, includes the exploration of the unfalsifiable." Now you say philosophy needs experiments.

3. No, empiricism is not like the creator god, assuming for the sake of argument that there is, in fact, a creator god. Empiricism is a philosophy, the creator god is a being that created the universe. Quite frankly, this question's answer is so obvious that I'm guessing the meaning got lost somewhere in translation.

A philosophy is a way of thoughts. So the empirism of physics is basing on meta-physics.

4. I think we largely agree, here. I think it's foolish for one to confidently declare that they don't believe in God, even if they believe that to be true. We aren't wired up for not believing in something, and it generally just requires the right circumstances to draw that belief out of someone. It's like they used to say after WWII, there's no atheists in a foxhole.

5. When I said kids, I wasn't literally referring to children. I only used the term to emphasize the immaturity of crusading to prove the stupidly obvious truth that some particular religion isn't scientific.

Eh?

Anyone claiming that their religion is science doesn't understand their religion, and anyone trying to apply science to religion doesn't understand science. And, I gotta tell you, it's awfully presumptuous to think that you can extrapolate someone's understanding of education, from the mere fact that they used "fuck" and "kids" in the same sentence.

I'm sure I'm right. Do you have children? Ask them and their mother what they think about your arts to educate your children.

6. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like the rules of any game. The tennis/football thing was a metaphor about simply acknowledging when someone is playing a different game than you are, rather than simply playing back at them as though the two different games are at all compatible. Scoring touchdowns against someone who is playing tennis is utterly meaningless, even if they're mistakenly trying to play tennis on your football field. Get it?

Sure I got it. To play is a serios thing. And everyone has to follow the same rules. Aye, Captain.

7. I'll try and cut you some slack based on English not being your native language,

Yeah - I'm privileged.

but good lord man, this was obviously a metaphor. If I apply your question back to the point I was illustrating with my metaphor, you're essentially asking me this: If the people who want to teach creationism in science class have a good time doing so, then what's the problem? The problem is that unfalsifiable ideas aren't science and shouldn't be taught as science, regardless of how much fun it is for the creationists.

Sorry - but we don't have a big problem with religious education in our schools here - better to say: we don't like to miss religious education in our schools. And we also don't like to miss education in natural sciences in our schools.

8. I wouldn't be so confident that the laws of nature are uniform throughout the universe. That's something that we're a long way from being able to verify.

What a brainwashing bullshit to say so. We never found any exception from this rule.