BAM! Put that in your public school curriculum and smoke it.
uhhhh... i never said what i just posted should be taught in public school. what i said has never been proven and school is about learning what science HAS explained, not the questions it raises. they can get into the questions in college.
uhhhh... i never said what i just posted should be taught in public school. what i said has never been proven and school is about learning what science HAS explained, not the questions it raises. they can get into the questions in college.
Yeah, you must missed that one...
Science required to be taught.. Religion should be banned...
Nevermind...
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Science required to be taught.. Religion should be banned...
Nevermind...
whose religion would you teach? ive no problem with a separate class in every high school covering the basic tenets of all major religions and their development over time.
all things incomprehensible do not HAVE to be explained by an unexplainable being, they just can be. take the big bang. science offers no sensible theory as to why or how the universe would go from utterly empty to a sudden and vast explosion of matter in no time at all. the very idea is ridiculous. until science gives me a better answer, i will simply ascribe it to some unknown creative force driving the way our universe works. we dont know why atoms spin round or where they get there charge. every time we make a discovery like that, we have more questions. we learn more and more about how things work, but little about why they work or how they came to work that way as opposed to another way.
i dont explain the incomprehensible being as you put it. i just find that there is more order to life than chaos and that there must be a reason for that. i dont believe in religion, or in "god" setting down 10 rules to follow and handing them to humans in stone tablet form. i look to nature and science to reveal "god's plan" to me.
Fair enough.
I put my faith in science, because it tries to figure things out.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I put my faith in science, because it tries to figure things out.
i dont care enough about how sulfur balls got in the desert to figure it out i put my faith in the fact that what i need will be provided, sometimes knowledge via science, sometimes direction via the people in my life, sometimes inspiration via art, etc.
whose religion would you teach? ive no problem with a separate class in every high school covering the basic tenets of all major religions and their development over time.
Yes, slow down.
I agree with the premise you've already stated in terms of public schools more or less suggesting that science is the end all be all when discussing everything from creation to evolution to atoms and oranges. (haha yes, atoms and oranges)
And to build on your Creation example I find it extremely laughable when people explain off the Creation theory which such ideas as the Big Bang yet believe that one may be mentally unstable in suggesting that a higher being could be responsible for what we know as existence.
In other words, to save from simply trying to rephrase what you've already stated, I agree with you.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Creationism isn't a scientific theory, it's a theological theory.
Science has strict guidelines and one of them is falsifiability, therefor Creationism can never be a science because it can't be disproven.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree with the premise you've already stated in terms of public schools more or less suggesting that science is the end all be all when discussing everything from creation to evolution to atoms and oranges. (haha yes, atoms and oranges)
And to build on your Creation example I find it extremely laughable when people explain off the Creation theory which such ideas as the Big Bang yet believe that one may be mentally unstable in suggesting that a higher being could be responsible for what we know as existence.
In other words, to save from simply trying to rephrase what you've already stated, I agree with you.
i doubt we agree totally. i think creationism is a joke in terms of science. i believe evolution has enough supporting evidence that it ought to be taught in high school science class. i dont think the big bang should be, unless it is mentioned in passing. the better answer would be "we dont know, if you become a scientist maybe you can figure it out!" get kids excited about science instead of intimidated by it. but i digress. bottom line, is the two are closely intertwined to me. i believe evolution happened. i believe it occurred becos some creative force set things in motion that way and that it happened according to scientific principles that were created by that force.
to use a political analogy, god is the government... creating the rules. science is the laws... the rules we live by. scientists are essentially lawyers... trying to figure out how the rules work and apply to the rest of us. religious leaders are lobbyists... trying to encourage us to think hard about why we have the rules we do.
i doubt we agree totally. i think creationism is a joke in terms of science. i believe evolution has enough supporting evidence that it ought to be taught in high school science class. i dont think the big bang should be, unless it is mentioned in passing. the better answer would be "we dont know, if you become a scientist maybe you can figure it out!" get kids excited about science instead of intimidated by it. but i digress. bottom line, is the two are closely intertwined to me. i believe evolution happened. i believe it occurred becos some creative force set things in motion that way and that it happened according to scientific principles that were created by that force.
to use an apt political analogy, god is the government... creating the rules. science is the laws... the rules we live by. scientists and religious leaders are lawyers, trying to figure out how the laws apply and why we need them anyway. the rest of us are joe citizen, doing our best not to get in trouble
Yeah, I still agree.
Sounds like a law school analogy.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
The Big Bang Theory is the scientific means of explaining the creation of the universe.
Besides.. Here's one for ya.. Disprove God's existence. Any God.
Creationism
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
The Big Bang Theory says that the universe was at one time a small concentrated ball of matter like a proton or other particles. Actually if you smash two protons together at 99% the speed of light it looks like a big bang effect with billions of small particles flying out from the epicenter.
By the way Big Bang isn't proven fact, there is a difference between theory and hypothesis and fact as well. A theory is basically an idea grounded in some scientific data with key things like falsifiability, a hypothesis is a prediction based on that theory of what will happen (we can find out in a few hundred billion years maybe if Big Bang is true) and a fact is something stands up to all the scrutiny and test thrown at it by the scientific community. So a theory that is falsifiable is hypothesized to test it's validity and if it still sticks, it's a fact. Of course that is an over-simplification of science.
You can't disprove god, that's why it's not falsifiable and not a good theory.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
ill be damned. who knew you were reasonable at times
yeah, it is kind of a law school analogy. honestly, my thinking is similar to jesus'... render unto caesar. teach scientific theory in science, and save religion for the people who are experts. i mean seriously, given the quality of the average public school science teacher, what self-respecting religious person wants them teaching their kid theology?
I would imagine it's part of a cycle. I'm not a fan of Big Bang theory myself.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The Big Bang Theory is the scientific means of explaining the creation of the universe.
Besides.. Here's one for ya.. Disprove God's existence. Any God.
the big bang theory is scientific becos it can be disproven and will be abandoned by scientists if a better theory is formulated. god is in some sense a better theory, but you cannot disprove or test god, which is why god is not a matter of science.
if your theory is that god created the universe as is the way genesis claims, that cannot be disproven (or if it can, it already has been long ago). thus it is not a matter of science, but rather faith.
I don't have one. I don't really need to know how the universe works. It would be nice, but I am patient.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
science is marvellous but can only tell you about the physical world and what is around us. it cannot tell you why or the purpose of things in our world and the greater questions of life such as "why are we we here?"
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
science is marvellous but can only tell you about the physical world and what is around us. it cannot tell you why or the purpose of things in our world and the greater questions of life such as "why are we we here?"
Religion gives us an answer to that question, but what if there is no real purpose? It could very well be that we are an anomaly that just happened to evolve into beings that need a purpose to justify our existence. I, for one, think that God is just an easy answer to appease people who need that question of our purpose answered. Without a doubt religious doctrine has always been created by men without much regard to fact or laws of nature. The real negative part of religion is that it doesn't really mature as a society matures. People are taught that religion is static. Scientific theories on the other hand, while still imperfect, can be proven or disproven and they often improve as society develops.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
I would argue that the imbalanced overtakings of science are largely due to the culture in which modern scientific thought has arisen, namely one in which humans are thought to have dominion over the entire earth. That is not a scientific idea, but a religious one. The unnatural hierarchy was not brought to us by science. We have certainly used science to exert that dominion, but it was Genesis, not a scientist, that introduced the idea that the world is ours to do with as we please. That is what we need to move through and past, and move towards an understanding of our own place in an inter-connected universe.
It looks like you see that the imbalance includes both science and religion. In the evolution of man, we've developed individual intellectual self-awareness, and whatever we attribute our delusions of grandeur to, we've used both religion and science to great levels of imbalance. The way to integrate all levels and have a whole healthy personal perspective, cultural view or actual true scientific discernment is to integrate all aspects together. By doing so, we naturally, and in healthy ways develop awareness beyond the prior small minded ways of blind scientism, or false-spirituality. When we integrate something consciously, we no longer dissociate from it. We've been showing our dissociation through our emotional bias that undermines our logic in both religion and science. By integrating what we've been lopping off, and by feeling and releasing our frozen emotional entanglements from the truth, we become able to use pure understanding, discernment and reason. Therefore our decisions come from a higher awareness level and can embrace the full view without emotional distortion and bias. This is actually what the pure scientific method has intended all along! The distortion in scientism is that we are not objective observers when we completely reject and dissociate from our personal bias! By dissociation, we only keep ourselves unaware of our existing bias! We also keep ourselves crippled. With our mass focus on scientism, and with our complete ignorance/dissociation of the importance of the consciousness of the flawed observer doing the flawed observing, we've "unconsciously" continually undermined the actual true scientific method.
The solution is the same in rectifying the crippled flawed views of small-minded religion, and small-minded scientism: by understanding the need for and becoming integrated, not only do we become actually realistic observers, but with the effects of integrated awareness the whole is greater than the sum of the parts--in all areas: personally, culturally, and in the natural world. When we awaken to truth, the synergy of the whole is far more glorious than most people can fathom from the perspective of the small-mind. And it's entirely possible to do so at this point in time. When we successfully integrate and expand our horizons, reworking the original natural truths that the false-spirituality/scientism were orignally based upon, into realistic, balanced understanding in the now, Wow.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Religion gives us an answer to that question, but what if there is no real purpose? It could very well be that we are an anomaly that just happened to evolve into beings that need a purpose to justify our existence. I, for one, think that God is just an easy answer to appease people who need that question of our purpose answered. Without a doubt religious doctrine has always been created by men without much regard to fact or laws of nature. The real negative part of religion is that it doesn't really mature as a society matures. People are taught that religion is static. Scientific theories on the other hand, while still imperfect, can be proven or disproven and they often improve as society develops.
I draw theses conclusions concerning our "purpose"
We are a cog in the universe, we are part of Earth's ecological cycle, which is part of our Solar system's cycle, which is part of the Milky Way's cycle and so on.
We also have immediate purpose, things that mean more to us on our ecological level. That is procreating and looking after our offspring.
What is our purpose? To have sex, make babies and die.
Speaking of which, I haven't done my part in a while.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Religion gives us an answer to that question, but what if there is no real purpose? It could very well be that we are an anomaly that just happened to evolve into beings that need a purpose to justify our existence. I, for one, think that God is just an easy answer to appease people who need that question of our purpose answered. Without a doubt religious doctrine has always been created by men without much regard to fact or laws of nature. The real negative part of religion is that it doesn't really mature as a society matures. People are taught that religion is static. Scientific theories on the other hand, while still imperfect, can be proven or disproven and they often improve as society develops.
true perhaps there is no purpose, that is up to each person to decide for themselves. on the other hand purpose you are dead wrong, who really knows? my point was it not science vs religion but science AND religion. they are two fields of study which should complement eachother. that is where the thinking in this field is wrong in my view.
The wind is blowing cold
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
Comments
uhhhh... i never said what i just posted should be taught in public school. what i said has never been proven and school is about learning what science HAS explained, not the questions it raises. they can get into the questions in college.
Yeah, you must missed that one...
Science required to be taught.. Religion should be banned...
Nevermind...
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
whose religion would you teach? ive no problem with a separate class in every high school covering the basic tenets of all major religions and their development over time.
~Ron Burgundy
Fair enough.
I put my faith in science, because it tries to figure things out.
i dont care enough about how sulfur balls got in the desert to figure it out
Yes, slow down.
I agree with the premise you've already stated in terms of public schools more or less suggesting that science is the end all be all when discussing everything from creation to evolution to atoms and oranges. (haha yes, atoms and oranges)
And to build on your Creation example I find it extremely laughable when people explain off the Creation theory which such ideas as the Big Bang yet believe that one may be mentally unstable in suggesting that a higher being could be responsible for what we know as existence.
In other words, to save from simply trying to rephrase what you've already stated, I agree with you.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Science has strict guidelines and one of them is falsifiability, therefor Creationism can never be a science because it can't be disproven.
The Big Bang Theory is the scientific means of explaining the creation of the universe.
Besides.. Here's one for ya.. Disprove God's existence. Any God.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
i doubt we agree totally. i think creationism is a joke in terms of science. i believe evolution has enough supporting evidence that it ought to be taught in high school science class. i dont think the big bang should be, unless it is mentioned in passing. the better answer would be "we dont know, if you become a scientist maybe you can figure it out!" get kids excited about science instead of intimidated by it. but i digress. bottom line, is the two are closely intertwined to me. i believe evolution happened. i believe it occurred becos some creative force set things in motion that way and that it happened according to scientific principles that were created by that force.
to use a political analogy, god is the government... creating the rules. science is the laws... the rules we live by. scientists are essentially lawyers... trying to figure out how the rules work and apply to the rest of us. religious leaders are lobbyists... trying to encourage us to think hard about why we have the rules we do.
Yeah, I still agree.
Sounds like a law school analogy.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Creationism
the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
The Big Bang Theory says that the universe was at one time a small concentrated ball of matter like a proton or other particles. Actually if you smash two protons together at 99% the speed of light it looks like a big bang effect with billions of small particles flying out from the epicenter.
By the way Big Bang isn't proven fact, there is a difference between theory and hypothesis and fact as well. A theory is basically an idea grounded in some scientific data with key things like falsifiability, a hypothesis is a prediction based on that theory of what will happen (we can find out in a few hundred billion years maybe if Big Bang is true) and a fact is something stands up to all the scrutiny and test thrown at it by the scientific community. So a theory that is falsifiable is hypothesized to test it's validity and if it still sticks, it's a fact. Of course that is an over-simplification of science.
You can't disprove god, that's why it's not falsifiable and not a good theory.
ill be damned. who knew you were reasonable at times
yeah, it is kind of a law school analogy. honestly, my thinking is similar to jesus'... render unto caesar. teach scientific theory in science, and save religion for the people who are experts. i mean seriously, given the quality of the average public school science teacher, what self-respecting religious person wants them teaching their kid theology?
where'd the ball come from?
I would imagine it's part of a cycle. I'm not a fan of Big Bang theory myself.
the big bang theory is scientific becos it can be disproven and will be abandoned by scientists if a better theory is formulated. god is in some sense a better theory, but you cannot disprove or test god, which is why god is not a matter of science.
if your theory is that god created the universe as is the way genesis claims, that cannot be disproven (or if it can, it already has been long ago). thus it is not a matter of science, but rather faith.
so what's your theory then?
I don't have one. I don't really need to know how the universe works. It would be nice, but I am patient.
What are you waiting on? The return of Christ to tell you actually how it is?
REPENT!
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?
Religion gives us an answer to that question, but what if there is no real purpose? It could very well be that we are an anomaly that just happened to evolve into beings that need a purpose to justify our existence. I, for one, think that God is just an easy answer to appease people who need that question of our purpose answered. Without a doubt religious doctrine has always been created by men without much regard to fact or laws of nature. The real negative part of religion is that it doesn't really mature as a society matures. People are taught that religion is static. Scientific theories on the other hand, while still imperfect, can be proven or disproven and they often improve as society develops.
It looks like you see that the imbalance includes both science and religion. In the evolution of man, we've developed individual intellectual self-awareness, and whatever we attribute our delusions of grandeur to, we've used both religion and science to great levels of imbalance. The way to integrate all levels and have a whole healthy personal perspective, cultural view or actual true scientific discernment is to integrate all aspects together. By doing so, we naturally, and in healthy ways develop awareness beyond the prior small minded ways of blind scientism, or false-spirituality. When we integrate something consciously, we no longer dissociate from it. We've been showing our dissociation through our emotional bias that undermines our logic in both religion and science. By integrating what we've been lopping off, and by feeling and releasing our frozen emotional entanglements from the truth, we become able to use pure understanding, discernment and reason. Therefore our decisions come from a higher awareness level and can embrace the full view without emotional distortion and bias. This is actually what the pure scientific method has intended all along! The distortion in scientism is that we are not objective observers when we completely reject and dissociate from our personal bias! By dissociation, we only keep ourselves unaware of our existing bias! We also keep ourselves crippled. With our mass focus on scientism, and with our complete ignorance/dissociation of the importance of the consciousness of the flawed observer doing the flawed observing, we've "unconsciously" continually undermined the actual true scientific method.
The solution is the same in rectifying the crippled flawed views of small-minded religion, and small-minded scientism: by understanding the need for and becoming integrated, not only do we become actually realistic observers, but with the effects of integrated awareness the whole is greater than the sum of the parts--in all areas: personally, culturally, and in the natural world. When we awaken to truth, the synergy of the whole is far more glorious than most people can fathom from the perspective of the small-mind. And it's entirely possible to do so at this point in time. When we successfully integrate and expand our horizons, reworking the original natural truths that the false-spirituality/scientism were orignally based upon, into realistic, balanced understanding in the now, Wow.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Of course, 'cause all liberals are atheists, right?
naděje umírá poslední
I draw theses conclusions concerning our "purpose"
We are a cog in the universe, we are part of Earth's ecological cycle, which is part of our Solar system's cycle, which is part of the Milky Way's cycle and so on.
We also have immediate purpose, things that mean more to us on our ecological level. That is procreating and looking after our offspring.
What is our purpose? To have sex, make babies and die.
Speaking of which, I haven't done my part in a while.
No, I said I love a good liberal back-patting thread.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
true perhaps there is no purpose, that is up to each person to decide for themselves. on the other hand purpose you are dead wrong, who really knows? my point was it not science vs religion but science AND religion. they are two fields of study which should complement eachother. that is where the thinking in this field is wrong in my view.
Have we lost our way tonight?
Have we lost our hope to sorrow?
Feels like were all alone
Running further from what’s right
And there are no more heroes to follow
So what are we becoming?
Where did we go wrong?