American Science Education

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Sachaztan]

^ you just showed how ignorant you are. Science is more about theory and hypothosis, not wild asumptions or things that couldnt' possibly exist.

With science you start with "could this exist with what we know now" and you go from there.

so if you start with what we know know about humans and dinosaurs, there's is a chance even if slim, that they were both around at the same time.

look at these egyptian drawings, tell me if they look like dinos or not
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/

That is just so horribly retarded I dont even know where to start.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Tym theres also a huge difference in not knowing something and momentarily forgetting because your put on the spot.

[Unkn0wn]

as a christian, and as someone who is somewhat a creationist but a realist creationist, there's no way to know if we were truly around then. They keep on moving back the time that they thought man was on the earth. He may not even have been in the present state as we know him to be and yes I believe in evolution but only a form in it not the complete "oh we came from a blob of crap."

there's a possibility that there were humans back then and that they mainly lived in mountains or closed off areas where dinosaurs couldn't reach or heck even maybe humans were able to thrive along with them who knows, we weren't back then and science only knows what it knows. There's so much unknown that we'll never know in our life time, to count anything out just because there's no evidence is fool hardy.

No offence but this is a load of bullcrap. What you are saying is that 'we can't possibly know 100% for sure if the science is accurate so I might as well believe something that hasn't been proven AT ALL'. By doing so, you (and all religious people really) are putting science on the same level as religion. Science isn't just another religion, science is above religion, i.e anything that has been proven by science can no longer be claimed by religion. God doesn't make it rain, because we know where rain comes from. God also can't have created man, because we know, more or less for sure, that man evolved from other beings. There is evidence to support that man evolved, there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence to support that god created humans, or even that god existed. You're honestly an idiot if you would rather believe some story in the bible over something science has more or less proven by now.

I'm fine with religions filling the gaps, i.e I'm fine with people thinking some god invented the universe. I'm fine with some people believing there is life after death. Those are all things science too has no explanation for, so if people want to explain that by religion, fine by me. What I am NOT fine with however is religion keeping people ignorant. I also honestly can't help but feel sorry for the people that take religious texts seriously. They're interesting lessons in morality, not history.

[smurfORnot]

God also can't have created man

Oh,if only you lived in the times of inquisition!

[Unkn0wn]

That was before Darwin, so it was just another 'gap' in knowledge I wouldn't mind religion filling.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Welcome to the scientific form of zealot, just as worth listening to as the religious one.

Congrats Unknown enjoy your religion.

[Tymathee]

Firstly I'm not going to get in a religious argument with anybody because that's not what this is about, if you want to discuss this more with me, I can be PM'd or you can create another thread and I'd be happy to answer any question you may have because I've had some of the same questions, if not all.

Secondly, I find it insulting that I say "christian" or "creationism" and it seems i'm put off as a lunatic and someone who's theories can't be trusted. I'll have you know that everything I say comes from research, and things I've learned over time not because I'm a christian but because I wanted to know stuff so I looked for it, not just in books but in observation.

for anyone to say with 100% surity that anything science says is completely true doesn't think like a scientist. Ask a true scientist, there's a reason why they keep studing things, because they dont' know for sure!

They keep finding things out that they thought they knew for sure all the time.

as for people not knowing things, i may not know some of these things if i'm just asked off the street or a phone poll to answer something at 30 years old something i learned 15-20 years ago in school in which I dont' use in my everyday life and may use 1 or 2 a year, I may forget as well.

so for you to discount alot of people as idiots right away is unfair, i'd like to see how many people in other countries would get it wrong but it seems all these tests try to make the US look stupid.

That was before Darwin, so it was just another 'gap' in knowledge I wouldn't mind religion filling.

darwin proved nothing, he made mainly observations. a lot of stuff he said in hsi book has been discounted today.

[Killer344]

lol, just lol.

[smurfORnot]

but it seems all these tests try to make the US look stupid.

And they are doing mighty fine job! Why arent people doing it about other country's?

[WildZontar]

This thread is ridiculously stupid.

[Dnicee]

This thread is ridiculously true.

fixed

[WildZontar]

fixed

Hrm, no doubt, but why is it directed towards the US to make it look bad? What are the excuses for the other countries? 

[Masacree]

^ you just showed how ignorant you are. Science is more about theory and hypothosis, not wild asumptions or things that couldnt' possibly exist.

With science you start with "could this exist with what we know now" and you go from there.

so if you start with what we know know about humans and dinosaurs, there's is a chance even if slim, that they were both around at the same time.

That's a strange (read: faulty) form of deductive logic. Science uses inductive logic. Science uses quantitative observations of nature to come to conclusions which are what we call "what we know now". Deductive logic involves taking general principles ("what we know now") and applying it to specifics. 

Basically, you're doing it backwards.

look at these egyptian drawings, tell me if they look like dinos or not
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/

lolwut. Is that what passes for evidence in these circles?

The egyptians also drew:



I'll be on the lookout for the ibis-headed human fossils as proof for your theory.

[Masacree]

for anyone to say with 100% surity that anything science says is completely true doesn't think like a scientist. Ask a true scientist, there's a reason why they keep studing things, because they dont' know for sure!

They keep finding things out that they thought they knew for sure all the time.

While this is true, I don't think you understand what scientists mean when they say that they don't know something for sure. It doesn't mean "well, all of our results indicate gravity is what causes things to fall to the ground, but I suppose it could also be their desire to move towards Jesus or really anything."

darwin proved nothing, he made mainly observations. a lot of stuff he said in hsi book has been discounted today.

That's just false.

If you ever read On the Origin of Species, you'll see that the beginning of the book outlines the theory (of evolution) which he believes explains the observations he presents throughout the rest of the book. That's how (what Heisenberg would call "stamp collecting") science works: Observations -> theoretical mechanism underlying the observations. Of course, he didn't "prove" anything in the absolute sense of the term, but his theory has been generally confirmed by further observations and experimentation in the field.

[Tymathee]

Masc, i know science is mainly theory and evolution was a theory but so many people like to treat it as fact and they fail to even consider anything else.

Me, I consider evolution or more natural selection or even closer nature adapting, to be true, thats my theory, however I also theorize intelligent design of the universe to make more sense than a big bang coming out of absolutely nothing and forming the perfect design of life and over millions of years this planet not get obliterated like the other 11, completely robbing it of any chance of supporting life.

Just so u know, i dont totally discount the big bang theory, as i believe that's how it started but this is how I see it was done.

It's like a computer program that starts off with bare code, if you know where you want it to go, you can set it up from the very beginning to end the way you want it to. Thats how i simplify it down to a way I can understand it.

It's more mind boggling to me that our universe can happen by accident than there being a Creator. To be honest, the way I feel, if this was all an accident then fuck it, I dont wanna be here anymore, there's no point, why present my next generation with the challenges that I had to deal with in my life, when there's no point to this life than living or dying, fuck morals, I may as well fuck everybody in the ass i meet cuz its all pointless anyway.

[Unkn0wn]

Secondly, I find it insulting that I say "christian" or "creationism" and it seems i'm put off as a lunatic and someone who's theories can't be trusted. I'll have you know that everything I say comes from research, and things I've learned over time not because I'm a christian but because I wanted to know stuff so I looked for it, not just in books but in observation.

Please do point me in the direction of this 'evidence' for creationism. Also, for me creationism =/= christianity and Christians =/= lunatics. Creationism = Lunatics however. And mind you, I was born and raised a catholic Christian. (Though I do not longer consider myself that) I know a lot of true Christians here in my country, and hardly any of them believe in creationism. The true value of Christianity is in the morals of its stories, not in reading it as a history book. (I honestly wish people who wrote religious texts would include disclaimers to prevent their writings from being abused by lunatics)

for anyone to say with 100% surity that anything science says is completely true doesn't think like a scientist. Ask a true scientist, there's a reason why they keep studing things, because they dont' know for sure!

Look up Karl Popper and his falsification theory. For anyone to claim that a certain something is 'false', they must first provide the necessary evidence to support their claims. As long as they don't, that which is proven the most is accepted as the most reliable and scientific answer. You're correct that without 100% certainty we shouldn't accept everything to be true (though truth be told, sometimes it's better to be safe than sorry, like is in the case of global warming science), though that doesn't mean religion is somehow equally plausible as an explanation. (Since you know, religion actually doesn't use scientific argumentation to support its claims)

It's more mind boggling to me that our universe can happen by accident than there being a Creator. To be honest, the way I feel, if this was all an accident then fuck it, I dont wanna be here anymore, there's no point, why present my next generation with the challenges that I had to deal with in my life, when there's no point to this life than living or dying, fuck morals, I may as well fuck everybody in the ass i meet cuz its all pointless anyway.

I'm absolutely fine with you believing something or someone caused the big bang. Heck, I sometimes even think there must be some 'greater cosmic power' (call it god if you will) at work  sometimes, when I marvel at the complexity of our universe.


P.S I know this is the off-topic forums but I expect at least some sort of respect in regards to the discussions at hand. Don't just post useless pictures or outright ridicule others their opinion.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

I simply looked at the title and lo and behold, I accurately predicted the entire discussion that would follow. Internet...

Suffice to say that science and religion are not as fundamentally dissimilar as you would like to believe. They both attempt to explain the unknown in an effort to further our understanding of humanity.

[Unkn0wn]

Suffice to say that science and religion are not as fundamentally dissimilar as you would like to believe. They both attempt to explain the unknown in an effort to further our understanding of humanity.

Yes, but one follows a scientific method which allows us to assume its outcome as true where as the other just pulls its argumentation out of thin air.

Looking to god is, essentially, a primitive response of human beings to explain that which cannot be explained. As a result, I honestly do not believe there is a place in modern society for religion, other than in the private spheres of one's home, in the context of spirituality.

[Sachaztan]

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/curiosity-did-god-create-the-universe.html

[Vermillion_Hawk]

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/curiosity-did-god-create-the-universe.html

What you neglect to mention is that in that episode Hawking does not state whether God truly did or did not create the universe, he simply explores the various theories and thoughts of various cosmologists regarding the subject. Hawking himself has described himself as an agnostic, claiming he believes a God-type being may have created the universe and set the laws of science in place.