Science and Religion

[leroy]

, leroy, those are not incontrovertible facts. Just because you assert things, does not make it true. I have backed up everything I said with the direct data or with a starting point for research. You have not recipricated, neither has nexttodie. I don't expect you to as you're obviously a troll. Every one of your "alternative facts" are brought up so many times there's not only a wiki for each response as a starting point for investigation but there's several articles explaining the blatant misunderstanding that comes from each of your assertions. If you bothered to read anything into the subject, you would discover that. Instead, you have decided to conclude the answer before seeing the information.

However, if you don't respond to any of these points, leroy. I'm done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...030f822fc35_story.html?utm_term=.bad14eba2f80

http://www.alternet.org/story/152349/why_the_anti-science_creationist_movement_is_so_dangerous

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/experiences.htm

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scopes-creationism-education/

The harder question is answer is what good does creationism do for anyone? What questions does it answer? What predictions does it make? How can I use creationism to better humanity?

anyone from this forum can confirm these 2 facts

1 It is a fact that the earths magnetic field is currently decaying


2 it is a fact that some people (both atheist and theist) are aware of fact 1 thanks to a Christian apologetic.

and (my personal opinion, not a fact) this should be interpreted as a positive contribution made by apologetics.

However, if you don't respond to any of these points, leroy. I'm done

because none of your replies is relevant to my point. I am not even a YEC, ...............all you have to do is grant those 2 uncontroversial facts, and let us know if you share the same opinion that I have.




..........

apart form that, my personal opinion is that God should not be a taboo, if a teacher assigns a student to read a book from William Lane or Michael Behe I would argue that the assignment would have a positive effect in the students scientific formation. .................and I would argue the same with books form Richard Dawkins.


feel free to argue or to disagree, but if you what to argue that such assignment would ruin the student please provide some evidence.

 

[leroy]

Typical troll post from next. Wiki pages are supposed to be non technical. Go down to the references if you want to see the actual sources cited. I also love that you call it a fucking joke at the same time citing another wiki.

So you agree with leroy's list of bullshit "facts" that have been debunked countless times?

You haven't debunked anything. You might think you have because rationalwiki is so poorly written. There are only a couple things in his list that are even debatable.

It is a fact that earth's rotation is slowing down. It is a fact that the moon is recession of the moon is a real thing. We measure these things each year.

I find it ironic you did not know this. I think one point leroy was trying to make is that there tends to be a set of scientific truths that you are more likely to be made aware of in reading non-secular material.

yes that is my point, thanks for summarizing it

 

[Dustnite]

You haven't debunked anything. You might think you have because rationalwiki is so poorly written. There are only a couple things in his list that are even debatable.

It is a fact that earth's rotation is slowing down. It is a fact that the moon is recession of the moon is a real thing. We measure these things each year.

I find it ironic you did not know this. I think one point leroy was trying to make is that there tends to be a set of scientific truths that you are more likely to be made aware of in reading non-secular material.

Obvious troll is obvious. Not only have you not cited any evidence to back up leroy's claims that you seem to agree with, you're perfectly content to remain ignorant on that subjects you claim knowledge of.

I gave you a starting point for research and you refuse to look deeper into it. Please present evidence for your claims if you find them so convincing.

 

[Dustnite]

feel free to argue or to disagree, but if you what to argue that such assignment would ruin the student please provide some evidence.

Not only did I present evidence to the obvious harm that's being conducted by creationists, you presented nothing but conjecture and opinion. You and next seem content to think that "non-secular" reading material will reveal some scientific truths and I bet you have no idea what that even implies.

The point is that you will take something which I haven't even denied like the recession of the moon which is perfectly consistent with various dating methods and that geomagnetic reversals have happened and will continue to happen. You would of known that if you actually read the wiki entry and then looked into this for yourselves. The whole reason a wiki article exists for this is because creationists bring it up so often that it supports a young earth model. It doesn't. THE POINT IS you have set a preconceived conclusion based off your own myopic view of science and claim that a book written by bronze age sheepherders claims things that only work if you're capable of the mental gymnastics of interpreting it that way.

The point is you both are seriously either misinformed or you're both dishonest. It's most likely the latter. Furthermore and on topic to this thread, SCIENCE AND RELIGION have no problem working side by side. It is only creationists that have an issue. Any "truths" you gain from creationism are either half-truths or data manipulated to fit a creationist container of some kind and is only applied after the fact when something has been discovered. Any new information that doesn't agree with your preconceived conclusion is either ignored, manipulated, or quote mined to pieces until it is unintelligible.

The point is creationists have not added anything to the knowledge to the world. They have instead hindered it or used religion for monetary gain. Science on the other hand has given us a world where we can communicate halfway across the country through a computer screen and fly to anywhere we want in the world. Again, you have nothing to say on this matter except repeat creationist talking point bullshit.

Thanks for not responding to anything else I posted, I am now done with you and rest my case. You're obviously not here to argue in good conscience and please kindly go fuck yourself.

 

[MarsCydonia]

anyone from this forum can confirm these 2 facts

1 It is a fact that the earths magnetic field is currently decaying

2 it is a fact that some people (both atheist and theist) are aware of fact 1 thanks to a Christian apologetic.

and (my personal opinion, not a fact) this should be interpreted as a positive contribution made by apologetics.

..........

apart form that, my personal opinion is that God should not be a taboo, if a teacher assigns a student to read a book from William Lane or Michael Behe I would argue that the assignment would have a positive effect in the students scientific formation. .................and I would argue the same with books form Richard Dawkins.


feel free to argue or to disagree, but if you what to argue that such assignment would ruin the student please provide some evidence.

So...
1. "Mary Curry died from aplastic anemia because she was an atheists, demons possessed her body and never prayed to keep them away"
2. "Mary Curry died from aplastic anemia because she was repeatedly exposed to radiation during her career"

So both atheists and theists could be made aware that Mary Curry died with 1. from aplastic anemia but to say 1. "should be intrepreted as a positive" simply because it got part of something right? I doubt anyone but a theist would make such an interpretation so there is absolutely no "should interpret it as a positive".

A teacher should assign a book from Michael Behe only if the science within it is sound (which limits the amount of Behe's books) and a book from William Lane Craig? I don't see any book of his that would provide a positive effect in a student's scientific formation.

 

[leroy]

feel free to argue or to disagree, but if you what to argue that such assignment would ruin the student please provide some evidence.

Not only did I present evidence to the obvious harm that's being conducted by creationists, you presented nothing but conjecture and opinion. You and next seem content to think that "non-secular" reading material will reveal some scientific truths and I bet you have no idea what that even implies.

The point is that you will take something which I haven't even denied like the recession of the moon which is perfectly consistent with various dating methods and that geomagnetic reversals have happened and will continue to happen. You would of known that if you actually read the wiki entry and then looked into this for yourselves. The whole reason a wiki article exists for this is because creationists bring it up so often that it supports a young earth model. It doesn't. THE POINT IS you have set a preconceived conclusion based off your own myopic view of science and claim that a book written by bronze age sheepherders claims things that only work if you're capable of the mental gymnastics of interpreting it that way.

The point is you both are seriously either misinformed or you're both dishonest. It's most likely the latter. Furthermore and on topic to this thread, SCIENCE AND RELIGION have no problem working side by side. It is only creationists that have an issue. Any "truths" you gain from creationism are either half-truths or data manipulated to fit a creationist container of some kind and is only applied after the fact when something has been discovered. Any new information that doesn't agree with your preconceived conclusion is either ignored, manipulated, or quote mined to pieces until it is unintelligible.

The point is creationists have not added anything to the knowledge to the world. They have instead hindered it or used religion for monetary gain. Science on the other hand has given us a world where we can communicate halfway across the country through a computer screen and fly to anywhere we want in the world. Again, you have nothing to say on this matter except repeat creationist talking point bullshit.

Thanks for not responding to anything else I posted, I am now done with you and rest my case. You're obviously not here to argue in good conscience and please kindly go fuck yourself.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


this guy is worst than MarsCydonia

 

[leroy]

anyone from this forum can confirm these 2 facts

1 It is a fact that the earths magnetic field is currently decaying

2 it is a fact that some people (both atheist and theist) are aware of fact 1 thanks to a Christian apologetic.

and (my personal opinion, not a fact) this should be interpreted as a positive contribution made by apologetics.

..........

apart form that, my personal opinion is that God should not be a taboo, if a teacher assigns a student to read a book from William Lane or Michael Behe I would argue that the assignment would have a positive effect in the students scientific formation. .................and I would argue the same with books form Richard Dawkins.


feel free to argue or to disagree, but if you what to argue that such assignment would ruin the student please provide some evidence.

So...
1. "Mary Curry died from aplastic anemia because she was an atheists, demons possessed her body and never prayed to keep them away"
2. "Mary Curry died from aplastic anemia because she was repeatedly exposed to radiation during her career"

So both atheists and theists could be made aware that Mary Curry died with 1. from aplastic anemia but to say 1. "should be intrepreted as a positive" simply because it got part of something right? I doubt anyone but a theist would make such an interpretation so there is absolutely no "should interpret it as a positive".

A teacher should assign a book from Michael Behe only if the science within it is sound (which limits the amount of Behe's books) and a book from William Lane Craig? I don't see any book of his that would provide a positive effect in a student's scientific formation.

yes sure, only if the book is scientifically sound.,,,,,,,,,,the only point that I am making is that God should not be taboo in science class ... For example today it is relatively common for students to attend to debates on the existence of God,or on evolution vs creation, something that would have been vey extraordinary 15 years ago.

my opinion (might be wrong) is that it is good for students to attend to such debates ..........and do see how attending a debate or reading a book could ruin a student.

 

[Gnug215]

the point is that at least some people learn about scientific facts and gain interest in science thanks to Christian evangelicals. in that sense people like Ken Ham are making positive contributions to science.

Well, your point is a bad one, for a number of reasons:


1: You learned science, some of which was bad, from unqualified people.
2: You could have learned a lot more and better science elsewhere (like... science class?), so it was time poorly spent.
3: Ken Ham and others are not contributing to science, but twisting it for own gains.
4: These people are basically trying to make the case that there is good and bad science (which there kinda is, now that they're around), and that you can take sides, and there's ideological angles to take on science, basically undermining it.
5: You're bad at science.


I know the sentiment you're trying to express, but it's simply just misguided.

You could try arguing the "reverse" (not quite, but bear with me):
"I learned some stuff about religion from atheists. They talked about God a lot, how his supposed traits make his existence a logical impossibility. But a lot of other stuff, too, like how Jesus might actually not have existed, how ridiculous the story of Noah is, about how the Jews wandered around the desert for 40 years, and how Moses was a child molester. At least I learned something about religion, so it's not all bad, yeah?"

You're learning some (partially) wrong stuff, from the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons.

 

[leroy]

the point is that at least some people learn about scientific facts and gain interest in science thanks to Christian evangelicals. in that sense people like Ken Ham are making positive contributions to science.

Well, your point is a bad one, for a number of reasons:


1: You learned science, some of which was bad, from unqualified people.
2: You could have learned a lot more and better science elsewhere (like... science class?), so it was time poorly spent.
3: Ken Ham and others are not contributing to science, but twisting it for own gains.
4: These people are basically trying to make the case that there is good and bad science (which there kinda is, now that they're around), and that you can take sides, and there's ideological angles to take on science, basically undermining it.
5: You're bad at science.


I know the sentiment you're trying to express, but it's simply just misguided.

You could try arguing the "reverse" (not quite, but bear with me):
"I learned some stuff about religion from atheists. They talked about God a lot, how his supposed traits make his existence a logical impossibility. But a lot of other stuff, too, like how Jesus might actually not have existed, how ridiculous the story of Noah is, about how the Jews wandered around the desert for 40 years, and how Moses was a child molester. At least I learned something about religion, so it's not all bad, yeah?"

You're learning some (partially) wrong stuff, from the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons.

yes I would argue that atheist, (jesus mythisists, anti creationists etc.) had a positive contribution to my knowledge on what the bible says, who jesus was etc.


I don't know if atheist are good for religion, because I wouldn't know how to measure good but I do think that theist have more knowledge about their religion than they would have had without atheists.

 

[Gnug215]

yes I would argue that atheist, (jesus mythisists, anti creationists etc.) had a positive contribution to my knowledge on what the bible says, who jesus was etc.


I don't know if atheist are good for religion, because I wouldn't know how to measure good but I do think that theist have more knowledge about their religion than they would have had without atheists.

So in your world, it doesn't matter if you learn the wrong things for the wrong reasons, as long as you just learn SOMEthing?

 

[leroy]

yes I would argue that atheist, (jesus mythisists, anti creationists etc.) had a positive contribution to my knowledge on what the bible says, who jesus was etc.


I don't know if atheist are good for religion, because I wouldn't know how to measure good but I do think that theist have more knowledge about their religion than they would have had without atheists.

So in your world, it doesn't matter if you learn the wrong things for the wrong reasons, as long as you just learn SOMEthing?

I don't know what you mean by wrong thing all I am saying is that any source that taught me something that I didn't know previously, would be a source that made a positive contribution in me. Regardless if the author of the source has the same world view that I have or not.


for example I learned from a video made by Aronra that reptiles are not a clade (like birds and mammals) therefore I have to admit this video made a positive contribution on me because I learned something.

 

[Gnug215]

So in your world, it doesn't matter if you learn the wrong things for the wrong reasons, as long as you just learn SOMEthing?

I don't know what you mean by wrong thing all I am saying is that any source that taught me something that I didn't know previously, would be a source that made a positive contribution in me. Regardless if the author of the source has the same world view that I have or not.


for example I learned from a video made by Aronra that reptiles are not a clade (like birds and mammals) therefore I have to admit this video made a positive contribution on me because I learned something.

Yes, I know what you're trying to get at, but your premise sits in a vacuum.

Yes, in theory, learning SOMEthing is better than nothing, but if you learn something that is wrong (and by wrong, I mean everything from straight out false, to something that is true but presented in a misleading context - like in your case, being taught by creationist ideologues that, say, the rotation of the Earth is slowing, and how that is evidence for Young Earth).

And again, if you've been taught these things by people with an agenda, then they made sure to present it in such a way as to win you over to their agenda. God only knows how many honest mistakes they made, and how many liberties they took with facts in order for them to make their facts fit with their beliefs.
What I'm saying is that not only may their (some, a few, most, all, whatever) teachings have been wrong, they might also have damaged your entire outlook on science.

Also, to repeat myself, you have to look at the time you spent learning these things, and consider if you could have spent your time better. Sure, if the alternative in your case to listening to fake preachers playing science would be sitting at home picking your nose, then sure, I guess at least you learned something.

It is clear to many of us here that your knowledge of science is lacking, and that your mindset towards it is... off, so, to put it bluntly: those bastards messed with your head.

I honestly don't think that's really a positive thing, but I will admit this much: I've been a somewhat similar situation to you. I was also preached to at a young age about some of these things, and I'm not entirely sure what the end result is. Maybe they, with all their faulty science, which gradually became evident over the years, started the process of taking me away from religion entirely?

So if you see it that way, that them teaching you crap science will lead you away from your primitive, emotionally based superstitions, then sure... it's a good thing.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I cant speak for everybody, but I am personally aware of many scientific facts thanks to evangelical Christians.


. The appendix is not useless

. C14 can only exist for a few thousand years

. Junk DNA is not Junk

. Earths rotation is slowing down

. Moon is moving apart from the earth

. Magnetic Field is decaying

.There is a mitochondrial eve

. Comets can only live for a few thousand years

. The sun was too cold for liquid water to exist 4B years ago

. Living Fossils have been found

etc


I am not saying that evangelical Christians discovered these facts, I am only saying that I personally learned about this scientific facts because they are typically promoted by evangelicals, and if I where to bet, I would say that most of you know all these facts because of an evangelical Christian.

Completely contrived.

Their belief in the Christian god provided them no material benefit in discovering any of these (although some of them are bunk). Rather, what gave them the insight there was their adherence to scientific method.

Now proceed to show us how many discoveries were made by prayer, invoking the gods, or reading the entrails of goats.

If you want to claim a discovery for your preferred religion, then you're going to need to show how their religion was intrinsic to the discovery, otherwise it's just a form of genetic fallacy.

 

[Sparhafoc]

. The appendix is not useless

. C14 can only exist for a few thousand years

. Junk DNA is not Junk

. Earths rotation is slowing down

. Moon is moving apart from the earth

. Magnetic Field is decaying

.There is a mitochondrial eve

. Comets can only live for a few thousand years

. The sun was too cold for liquid water to exist 4B years ago

. Living Fossils have been found

And on to address the elephant in the room.

None of these were discovered by Christians at all. All of them were discovered by scientists and published in science papers. Not one of them has anything to do with fundamentalist ravings. If you wish to claim otherwise, then it's time to put your money where your mouth is and replace your Gish Gallup with some citations.

Most of them are also wrong or misapprehended.

For example, mitochondrial Eve has nothing whatsoever to do with the raving lunatic notion of a single human female existing. Rather, mitochondrial Eve is just one of many women present at the time, whose descendants just so happened to be the ones who out-survived or out-bred the other human groups. You have to remember, Mitochondial Eve's daughters and grand-daughters had sex with people from the same tribe and other tribes, so it's not like only mitochondrial Eve's genes survive, rather that her mitochondria is the common ancestor of mitochondria present in women today. We picked the name 'Eve' because of mythology, not the other way round.

Living fossils have never been found - the word 'fossil' indicates that biological tissue has been replaced with minerals. Show me a single instance of a fossil ever exhibiting any sign of life whatsoever.

Comets can live for a thousand years, or a billion. How long is a piece of string?

The Sun was not too cold for liquid water 4bya - I was laughing while typing it, so ridiculous is the notion. :lol:

The magnetic field is decaying, but it's also being regenerated.

Half-lives were discovered by scientists who have known about half-lives and the decay of C14 for decades. Creationists still don't get this. We know when to use carbon-dating, and when to use the dozens of other dating techniques we've developed over the last century. Creationists, of course, know nothing whatsoever relevant except believing some propaganda proponent that carbon dating is an anti-Biblical heresy.

Junk DNA is still junk, and will always remain so. Just because the role of some DNA is unknown, doesn't mean that it's junk DNA. Rather, as per usual, Creationists have got it arse about tit and think that any unexplained DNA must be junk DNA, whereas it has a specific meaning in scientific parlance and that is Non-coding DNA. There is a lot of non-coding DNA, and whether we call it junk or non-coding, so it remains. Creationists believe what they want to believe, whether that's about science denial or the promulgation of fantastical myth from our species' infancy.

The Moon is very gradually moving away from the Earth and the Earth's rotation is very gradually slowing down, and neither of these have anything to do with Creationists ever at all in any way. Rather, they result from the observations of the movement of planetary bodies for which you Christians used to imprison people... cough Galileo cough.

Finally, the word 'vestigial' doesn't and never has meant 'useless' - another all too typical Creationist canard.

Personally, Leroy, I think you can bring a lot more to the discussion than uncritically borrowed propaganda someone regurgitated into your mouth. If not, fine, you're going to learn the hard way why you've bought into a big fucking con.