Respecting religion???
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No, that is incorrect (at least according to the original definition).I lack belief in god - but as a scientist I cannot assert absolutely that god(s) do not exist since I don't have any data on which to base such an assertion. I have to be open to all possibilities in the face of new evidence or data.
The best I can do is to make an informed decision as to whether I think the existence of gods are likely based on the information I do have available (in much the same way as I would about dragons, fairies, aliens etc).
I do find it somewhat strange that the word atheist exists at all. We don't have specific words to describe a lack of belief in other things (e.g. dragons, fairies, aliens etc).
If it's any consolation Derek, consider that it may be that, when God dropped by to check on the evolution of his creation, one of the dinosaurs bit him and that really pissed him off so he 'rebooted' the planet.
I think the asteroid idea quite plausible, what with considering the energies involved in such collisions and the environmental impacts witnessed when tsunamis occur, when Mount St.Helens erupted, the mini ice age we experienced in recent(ish) history, our own vulnerability with regards climate (famine)..........
I think the asteroid idea quite plausible, what with considering the energies involved in such collisions and the environmental impacts witnessed when tsunamis occur, when Mount St.Helens erupted, the mini ice age we experienced in recent(ish) history, our own vulnerability with regards climate (famine)..........
Derek Smith said:
Sorry to not be clear. I'm not suggesting the asteroid theory is not possible. In fact I reckon it has a lot going for it. One objection is a bit unscientific: everyone loves a catastrophe. Further, if it didn't lend itself to all sorts of exciting Discovery programmes, I wonder if it would have been fed to us so frequently.
However, the main problem I have with it is that people went looking for this specific solution and the conflicting evidence, which was frequently referred to pre-Chixulub, has been sidelined. If you look at all the major police investigations that went wrong, the team generally went looking for a specific solution rather than gathering evidence and then working out who might have done it. The inconvenient circumstances were rather ignored.
That said, I have little doubt that the asteroid had an influence. But was it, as we are told, the main cause of the end of the species? I'm not convinced.
Ah, I see what you are getting at. Still, it does seem the case the there was a global extinction event in relatively short period, so it is perhaps understandable that theories look for some kind of event on a global scale - I take the point on looking hard to fit the assumption however. I've not really looked into it - any good links?However, the main problem I have with it is that people went looking for this specific solution and the conflicting evidence, which was frequently referred to pre-Chixulub, has been sidelined. If you look at all the major police investigations that went wrong, the team generally went looking for a specific solution rather than gathering evidence and then working out who might have done it. The inconvenient circumstances were rather ignored.
That said, I have little doubt that the asteroid had an influence. But was it, as we are told, the main cause of the end of the species? I'm not convinced.
The mocking of evolution by some creationists does not only require mocking, but mocking it quite absolute terms. The idea that lying to children about this and making them believe the planet is only 6000 years old is really not acceptable - when I see teachers with these views I wonder whether the grown ups should not be reaching for legislation. We don't let kids smoke or drink alcohol, so why expose them to this toxic, patently untrue nonsense?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why is that ridiculous?http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
anonymous said:
[redacted]
"it's just a theory". The rallying call of people who don't understand what a scientific theory actually is.Scientific theories are not unsubstantiated 'best guesses'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)."
Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 24th January 13:27
WinstonWolf said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There absolutely no competition. One is based in fact, the other is based on belief.The "6000 year old earth/God as creationist/popping Adam on the planet and making Eve out of his rib" theory is contradicted by so much HARD evidence that it is difficult to understand how it is not universally dismissed.
///ajd said:
Indeed, the idea that they are somehow 'competing' theories is really a difficult concept in this day and age.
They are competing theories in a sense...in a completely untrue and made-up sense. 
The adaptations that are required from Newtonian to Einstein to quantum physics has fascinated me since I read the Science of Discworld. And I read about the 'Lies-to-Children' concept.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
I recall in the dinosaur books I used to read from the library when I was younger, the end section was always on the 'end of the dino.' Meat-eaters eating all the greenies, them being too big and slow for competitors, them being too stupid were front runners of their demise. The asteroid end was always tacked on towards the end, but it has gotten more traction in the past 30 years.
Moonhawk said:
"God" as a contender theory for "creator/origin of the universe" cannot be considered a scientific theory because it fails one of the most basic tests of a scientific theory - that the theory is falsifiable.
I'd like to hear more about how it is falsifiable, and how it has to be considered a scientific theory to be accepted as a theory.Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 24th January 13:50
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 24th January 15:25
Moonhawk said:
No, that is incorrect (at least according to the original definition).
I lack belief in god - but as a scientist I cannot assert absolutely that god(s) do not exist since I don't have any data on which to base such an assertion. I have to be open to all possibilities in the face of new evidence or data.
The best I can do is to make an informed decision as to whether I think the existence of gods are likely based on the information I do have available (in much the same way as I would about dragons, fairies, aliens etc).
I do find it somewhat strange that the word atheist exists at all. We don't have specific words to describe a lack of belief in other things (e.g. dragons, fairies, aliens etc).
So if someone else follows the theory of a God then you wouldn't mock them because you are open to the possibility that they might actually be right?I lack belief in god - but as a scientist I cannot assert absolutely that god(s) do not exist since I don't have any data on which to base such an assertion. I have to be open to all possibilities in the face of new evidence or data.
The best I can do is to make an informed decision as to whether I think the existence of gods are likely based on the information I do have available (in much the same way as I would about dragons, fairies, aliens etc).
I do find it somewhat strange that the word atheist exists at all. We don't have specific words to describe a lack of belief in other things (e.g. dragons, fairies, aliens etc).
anonymous said:
[redacted]
All 'scientific theories' have to be falsifiable in the light of new evidence or data. It's one of the defining characteristics of a 'scientific theory'.The word 'theory' as used in general terms simply means speculation or a guess which is more akin to a hypothesis than a scientific theory.
Theory /= Scientific Theory
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It would depend on the circumstances. I don't generally seek out people to mock, whether they believe in gods or fairies. I keep myself to myself. If they challenged my own beliefs using unsubstantiated assertions, tried to convert me to their way of thinking or insulted me or my family (as has actually happened) - that may warrant a little mockery.Moonhawk said:
All 'scientific theories' have to be falsifiable in the light of new evidence or data. It's one of the defining characteristics of a 'scientific theory'.
The word 'theory' as used in general terms simply means speculation or a guess which is more akin to a hypothesis than a scientific theory.
Theory /= Scientific Theory
I would agree with that which is why I get enraged when I hear global warmists use statements like "the debate is over", it's never over in science surely.The word 'theory' as used in general terms simply means speculation or a guess which is more akin to a hypothesis than a scientific theory.
Theory /= Scientific Theory
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Evolution as fact and theoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_an...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff