Well, that's all well and good but "dark energy" and "dark matter" verbal stand-ins for variables in equations.
Much like Einstein's Anti-Gravity or Hawking's Worm Holes, the words used to describe a missing piece of mathematics give it a new life and a cultural weight that the science and mathematics does not have on its own.
The idea grows legs.
Inherit the Windbag
242Finally Science and Religion meet.
Rick Reuben wrote:Marsupialized reminds me of freedom
Inherit the Windbag
243Faith: Certainty in the face of uncertainty.
Atheists and scientists are certain only of that for which there is evidence. We are certain of nothing else. If you want to call that faith, I suppose you can call it whatever you want.
Atheists and scientists are certain only of that for which there is evidence. We are certain of nothing else. If you want to call that faith, I suppose you can call it whatever you want.
Mike McGovern
Inherit the Windbag
244kenoki wrote:Ok that's fine, but I'm asking these rational people... was anyone here (from public school) rejected the freedom to learn about the big bang theory or evolution or...? This is no new topic. It has been a sore spot for a long time of course... Was G Dub implying that creationism or intelligent design be substituted for darwinism?
I believe it would be extremely difficult to root the question of creationism out of the classroom. Children, like myself at one time, have questions... and I think in a science class room these questions are generally valid discussion. Helps the child formulate their own plans and ideas... as I did, and clearly every one else in this forum did. Is a teacher supposed to discredit stuff a number of his or her students were brought up to believe? Ignore the topic entirely? Go on teaching one way as if it was a (and I have a tough time writing these next couple words because I've noticed them paired in similar ways in previous posts... gut wrenching) "PROVEN" theory (proven to be a theory?) but still more viable than the other purely theoretical theory...
There are facts we are taught... elementary stuff that could alone inspire a new thought process for some quiet youth group kid... carbon dating, the layers of the earth... a critical thinking child can take what they've learned, those indisputable, and begin asking themselves how or if these articles of fact contradict anything they may have thought in the past... and on and on and........................
The problem isn't that GW's suggesting that you substitute intelligent design. The problem is that he's saying school is a place where you should be exposed to different possibilities. Then, he goes on to mention only intelligent design. That's what you call an agenda.
It's not like he said schools should present the possibility that God created the earth in a matter of days. I also think they should present the possibility that Odin created the world from the body of a frost giant he had just killed.
To me, each of those last two are equally possible. However, you won't see Christians trying to get Norse myth into the science classroom. That should be a part of English because it's all obviously bunk(even though it seems just a plausible as creationism to me)
This is all before you take into account the hissyfit that would be thrown if you said "Fine. We'll put creationism into the classroom if you allow someone to speak on the possibility of evolution the next Sunday."
Inherit the Windbag
245Not to call the obvious bullshit on you, but oil and water are both liquids.Rick Reuben wrote:That's not an assumption that I make, but it is a declaration that many atheists make. They see oil and water when they see the two.floog wrote:The assumption here is that science and theism are polar opposites, which isn't always necessarily the case.
Rift Canyon Dreamspwalshj wrote:I have offered you sausage.
Inherit the Windbag
246All matter and energy were farted into existence out of nothingness through an inscrutable blastopore existing nowhere and everywhere, outside and inside the linear Timestream envisioned by your pathetic scienticians.
Prove it wasn't.
Please respect my very serious beliefs. This is serious.
Prove it wasn't.
Please respect my very serious beliefs. This is serious.
Inherit the Windbag
247Christopher J. McGarvey wrote:Not to call the obvious bullshit on you, but oil and water are both liquids.Rick Reuben wrote:That's not an assumption that I make, but it is a declaration that many atheists make. They see oil and water when they see the two.floog wrote:The assumption here is that science and theism are polar opposites, which isn't always necessarily the case.
Yep.
He figures out enough shit to make Nikola Telsa shake his head but, can't come up with a decent set of polar opposites.
Hang your head, Braniac.
Inherit the Windbag
248RR,
I don't have the time to get into a lengthy and ultimately fruitless debate with you, but I am curious as to whether or not you've ever taken a secondary education level science class. I only ask because you seem to not really grasp or understand how science works.
-Amanda
I don't have the time to get into a lengthy and ultimately fruitless debate with you, but I am curious as to whether or not you've ever taken a secondary education level science class. I only ask because you seem to not really grasp or understand how science works.
-Amanda
"To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost."
-Gustave Flaubert
-Gustave Flaubert
Inherit the Windbag
249Umm......
I'm not an atheist.
I may hate God, but that has to do with my Catholic upbringing.
I believe in God and have expressed that before and have also said that I consider myself an agnostic.
Despite the fact that oil and water don't mix, they're still both liquids.
You could come up with a better analogy.
Why not compare believers and nonbelievers to people and rocks.
At least that's effective.
I'm not an atheist.
I may hate God, but that has to do with my Catholic upbringing.
I believe in God and have expressed that before and have also said that I consider myself an agnostic.
Despite the fact that oil and water don't mix, they're still both liquids.
You could come up with a better analogy.
Why not compare believers and nonbelievers to people and rocks.
At least that's effective.
Rift Canyon Dreamspwalshj wrote:I have offered you sausage.
Inherit the Windbag
250Rick Reuben wrote:You and McGreevey both need to put the bong down. Oil and water do not mix. Theism and science do not mix. Atheism and science do not mix. Polar opposites have nothing to do with this. Theism and science cannot be polar opposites, because they are apples and oranges. Polar opposites are the inverse of each other. The polar opposite of theism can only be atheism, not science.numberthirty wrote:He figures out enough shit to make Nikola Telsa shake his head but, can't come up with a decent set of polar opposites.
By the way: Atheists, by denying that God exists, affirm that they consider God to be a possibility. If atheists truly believed that God is an impossibility, then there would be no need for atheists to exist. There would be two categories of people: people who insisted that God exists, and people who ignored the first group of people.
The fact that atheists feel a need to react to the claims made by believers confirms that they have a hidden suspicion that God is real. If believers postulated that a flying spaghetti monster created the universe, the atheists would not form opposition to that theory. By opposing the theory of God, atheists reveal how seriously they take the possibility that God exists.
That line about by denying is totally bunk. That's like if by denying being a moron Rick/Clocker had considered being a moron to be a possibility. I can't recall that you ever have. I don't have to have a hidden suspicion that you may not be an idiot to decide that you are an idiot.