The extremist/OverReligious people.: the most dangerous pest

Post Reply New Topic

8 - religious people don't understand the scientific method :
Scientific approach start with a theory . The scientific method is investigating a phenomena based on collecting measurable evidences by observing and collecting data by experimentation and observing .

Real scientists propose a hypothesis as explanation of the phenomena and from there they start their scientific reasearch.
If there's no enough evidences or if there's a lot of evidences that contradict the hypothesis A then they disapprove this hypothesis and they try with a hypothesis B .
Unlike real scientists , creationists and their fake fundamental "scientists" that represent only 1 % of the scientists community (and mostly they get paid for that ) use a reverse method , their approach is upside down:
The 'phenomena' that they do research about is according to them , an unquestionable 'fact' , since the bible says so .
They set at first the final result ('their fact') and from there they start their research , instead of setting an hypothesis at first to get the final result . So even if they find tons and tons of evidences that contradict their 'fact' they would ignore it and try to search other evidence that support their 'fact' , since the 'phenomena' they are doing research about is an unquestionable 'fact' that it's 100% correct according to them,so for them there's no way that it can be false....

9-

to be continued ....

Quakers are not a separate religion. They are part of the Christian religion.

IMO the problem is not religion, its the power hungry institutions that diverge from the principles of their religion (thinking of Christian Churches).

The inquisition was about an institution holding power. The reformation was about getting back to correct principals.

Religious zealots IMHO are more concerned about building a political power base.

THE Christian religion?

I don't buy that, when there is
generally a belief that one way
is correct, and others are possibly
going to hell.

That's like saying THE Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion.

There are people who think they are better. I have relatives who don't like the fact my parents are divorce, and blame me though I was 11. I also went to a church where this "collection plate watcher" spied on me to see if I place something in the plate. I left and I am happy where I am at now.

That's exactly why creationist and intelligent design stuff are not considered real science and are rejected by the scientific community, because of that.

[quote="JonnyBGoode"Carbon 14 dating does not prove the world is 4.5 billion years old. It can't. Carbon 14 isn't useful for dating specimens more than 60,000 years old, due to the half-life of Carbon 14 (only 5,730 years). Such dating also is based on several untestable assumptions, the largest being that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have remained constant over time. Which we all know, since the advent of global warming awareness, simply isn't the case. Just throwing that out there, since I believe in truth and accuracy, and I hear "Carbon 14 proves X" a lot, yet people really don't know much about the science at all other than "what they've heard".[/quote]

This is correct.

It's a good thing we have radioisotopes with longer half-lives than carbon 14, yes?

Just when I was getting to like you - lol

Its really frustrating when people make a strong statement that is totally untrue, like arguing that black is white and night is day (or Islam is peaceful - lol).

Quakers are Christians, just like Baptists, Methodists and Catholics.

http://www.quaker.org/friends.html

IHMO Quakers are probably more Christian that any other denomination.

Bazza, I'm not denying that Quakers are Christian.
I'm denying that there is A Christian religion.

Christianity is defined by a set of beliefs (which
different religions might just see differently).
This is why certain sects can (and do) claim that
others are NOT Christian. For example, I have
heard that some hold that without believing in
the theological construct of the Trinity, one
cannot be a Christian.

Isn't saying that Islam (in general) is not peaceful at all, some sort of a black and white thing?

I believe a lot of muslims who live in western countries are peaceful and they would claim that their religion is peaceful. Though they live in another country outside the middle east.

This is a key point - proper scientists accept what the body of the best evidence available tells them. pseudoscientists will accept nothing that goes against what they have already decided is he truth, no matter what the nature of the evidence is or the source. They will seize upon a marginal piece of evidence from the peer-reviewed literature but will reject the metastudies and what it concludes overall if it doesn't suit them. their sole criterion for accepting or rejecting a piece of evidence is whether it agrees or not with what they've already decided is true.

Exactly, and that is why creationism is never true science.

Doesn't the same exact criticisms apply in equal force for the Atheist/Evolutionist conviction?

^not at all , evolution is a part of science and evolutions theories follow the regular scientific methods.

exactly, the evidence for evolution is there (fossil record, taxonomy, the realities of mutations and survival of the fittest, the well-documented effects of artificial selection, experiments showing adaptation over several generations of specific organisms to certain conditions, and not least some very unintelligent designs in living creatures, such as the eye's blind spot).

It is clear that populations of organisms adapt to their environment in response to external pressures. This fact is the very basis of civilization, the ability to mold the traits of domesticated life forms. Naturally Darwin's observations on this point are well known. But the finches where all still the same species in spite of specializations in specific populations.

However where is the explanation for the origin of any complex system? Where is the example of anything that is not a modification of a previously complete and functional biological system? One of the most fundamental principles in engineering is that a simpler but complete system is going to accomplish a task more reliably them a complex but incomplete system. How can an incomplete system, say an aerodynamic wing, be a survival benefit against a simpler but more complete solution?

Based in this draw the conclusion you want. I am simply citing points that even casual acquittance with any engineering discipline raises, not even to start into the demonstrated principles of statistics and thermal dynamics. I am not even interested in a lengthy Evolution v. Creationism debate. I leave thinking through these points as an exercise of the reader. My only point I am making in this is that the Atheist/Evolutionist mind set can be as closed minded as any religiously motivated point of view.

I choose to draw conclusions based on demonstrated fact rather then assertions based on "insert fantastically unlikely event here" explanations. Regarding the scientific method, the occurrences required to explain evolution are about as reproducible as divine intervention. So based on application of Occam's Razor I favor a creator verses unobservable violations of probability and directly experienced principles of designing dynamic systems. Draw what ever conclusions you choose.

Actually, the most abundant lifeforms are bacteria so yes, the simplest organisms are completely dominant - the simpler designs are indeed reliable, and multi-cellular organisms are, by numbers, a (bulky) sideshow. even among land animals, non-insects (with their fancy extras like, in the case of mammals, being war-blooded) are a sideshow. bacteria are indeed more successful at the task of survival. I don't see how an aerodynamic wing is less complete than an less perfect wing. Occasionally a mutation could produce something more complex that still managed to survive (it is indeed more improbable, otherwise bacteria wouldn't be dominant). There are no violations of probability involved, the probabilities are low (hence evolution doesn't happen overnight, even though mutations occur all the time) but not zero (and don't violate the laws of thermodynamics).
Actually, the occurrences required to explain evolution are perfectly reproducible - lab experiments have been carried out on how colonies of bacteria evolve to adapt to new conditions due to natural selection. likewise, experiments have been performed on, for example, survival of the fittest in animals (in fruit flies, snails, etc). There is hard evidence for survival of the fittest, for complex organisms having simpler ancestors (the fossil record), mutations, the emergence of genetically distinct populations due to survival of the fittest, etc. Occam's razor does not eliminate these facts, and there is nothing unobservable about them.