NationStates Jolt Archive

All this talk about deciding wether or not to allow the teaching if intelligent design in classrooms got me thinking. Why not preach physics in church? I mean it's something you can have selective faith in, like gravity right? Oh sure during the Apollo 15 lunar landing one of the astronauts did drop two objects simultaniously in the moon's gravitational field and they hit the ground at the same time but THAT doesn't prove anything! Maybe if we change the name of physics to "Analytical Faith" it may become more acceptable to church-goers and maybe even trick a few people into thinking it's an actual religious belief. What do you think about that? ;)

/sarcasm

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
...

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
August 17, 2005 | Issue 41•33

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
...

Haha I'm GLAD that's not true :p

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
...

The thing is, he probably was alluding to a "higher power", erroneously in my eyes but who knows?

Lovely thread, btw.

Because, as we all know, two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make for a nice feeling of self-righteous justification. :rolleyes:

All this talk about deciding wether or not to allow the teaching if intelligent design in classrooms got me thinking. Why not preach physics in church?

Make it astrophysics then. And give it equal attention ...

Before break: God first created earth, and afterwards the sun, stars and other planets ! We are the centre of the universe !

After break: The sun was formed far before any real planets, including earth, appeared in our solarsystem. Other stars are much older than our own. The earth is not the center of the universe, as one would expect if it really had been the first heavenly body made, but revolves around our sun which in turn is in a rather uninteresting spiral arm of a not too big galaxy which is not even near the centre of the universe.

Actually.. people might get depressed by that. So yes... Screw gravity ! It is only a law ;)

Well since creationism is disguised as science by calling it intelligent design, maybe you can sneak physics into church under the guise of GL, God's laws.

For example, one could tell the faithfull that god won't permit you to travel faster than light or build a perpetual motion machine because it violates his laws for how the universe must be governed.

All this talk about deciding wether or not to allow the teaching if intelligent design in classrooms got me thinking. Why not preach physics in church? I mean it's something you can have selective faith in, like gravity right? Oh sure during the Apollo 15 lunar landing one of the astronauts did drop two objects simultaniously in the moon's gravitational field and they hit the ground at the same time but THAT doesn't prove anything! Maybe if we change the name of physics to "Analytical Faith" it may become more acceptable to church-goers and maybe even trick a few people into thinking it's an actual religious belief. What do you think about that? ;)

/sarcasmdon't know about Physics, but sometimes in our sunday school and bible studies, some math and science was used to help illustrate the wonders of Gods creations.

Well since creationism is disguised as science by calling it intelligent design, maybe you can sneak physics into church under the guise of GL, God's laws.

For example, one could tell the faithfull that god won't permit you to travel faster than light or build a perpetual motion machine because it violates his laws for how the universe must be governed.

Yes...YES! That could work, but there's one part of that which fails. Intelligent Design seems to exist for the sheer purpose of conversion (at least in my opinion) so we'd have to conjure up a way to make GL "tainted" in a similar fashion.

Well since creationism is disguised as science by calling it intelligent design, maybe you can sneak physics into church under the guise of GL, God's laws.

For example, one could tell the faithfull that god won't permit you to travel faster than light or build a perpetual motion machine because it violates his laws for how the universe must be governed.
That sounds like a good idea, but it's not close enough to ID, because those theories are actually plausible.

Amusing thread topic. But its not a perfect analogy: Primary and secondary education is mandatory in the West, with limited options for many people for alternatives to state suppored schools. whereas church attendance is not mandatory.

Amusing thread topic. But its not a perfect analogy: Primary and secondary education is mandatory in the West, with limited options for many people for alternatives to state suppored schools. whereas church attendance is not mandatory.

Well it wasn't meant to be a perfect one, but then again what is? I just thought I'd mock this topic a little bit for fun.

It is a nice image: of a Physics professor in a lab coat hijacking a Sunday School class. It would make a great comic skit!

http://67.18.37.14/32/176/upload/p1636703.gif

It's not physics, but you get the drift.

Sounds good to me, Churches could hold physics sermons after the main sermons. It would definitly be a good thing.
It would also mean that (gasp!) certain NSers would have to stop generalizing the entire southern portion of the US as being inhabited by nothing but hicks living in shacks wielding hopelessly outdated shotguns.
Ill have you know, my grandfather owns a quite modern shotgun.

... and the LORD said, "G is a universal constant and has the value 6.67259x10-11 N-m2/kg2 (3.4389x10-8 lb-ft2/slug2)" ... somebody give me an AMEN!

I dunno about church, but southern black Baptist style preaching sure would have made physics class a lot more entertaining.

don't know about Physics, but sometimes in our sunday school and bible studies, some math and science was used to help illustrate the wonders of Gods creations.

Could you explain more in-depth, please? Do you mean math and science were used to explain fantastic things in nature, or how incredible and miraculous miracles in the Bible are?

Just curious...

what makes you think we don't?
the most important issues are always
subtly inserted within such innocent
conversation

try it for yourself-go to church-take notes
compare those to what you know about physics

Since education is compulsory, it's not a good comparison.

If you were forced to go to church for 8 hours a day, five days a week, I could definitely be persuaded to include teachings about physics.

This reminds me of a quote I heard/read somewhere...I apologize for not having the source. I believe it went like:

"Sure, they can post the Ten Commandments in courtrooms. But only if I get to staple the Constitution to Jesus' chest in every church."

I think it's a great idea. We could finally have "And God said: E = +mv^2 - Ze^2/r ...and there *WAS* light!" shouted out in church!

You know, private schools based in churches already teach physics. :eek: :p

Because, as we all know, two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make for a nice feeling of self-righteous justification. :rolleyes:

Humor, meet BerkylvaniaYetAgain. BerkylvaniaYetAgain, meet humor.

If they're going to force religion into science classrooms then we (physicists) should get to teach physics in churches. It's only fair.

... and the LORD said, "G is a universal constant and has the value 6.67259x10-11 N-m2/kg2 (3.4389x10-8 lb-ft2/slug2)" ... somebody give me an AMEN!

I dunno about church, but southern black Baptist style preaching sure would have made physics class a lot more entertaining.

AMEN!

You know, private schools based in churches already teach physics. :eek: :p

O RLY?

I go to LeTourneau University in Longview, Texas. The University is very well known for turning out top-knotch Engineers (and pilots and programmers, but they're outside my point). LeTourneau University is also a private Christain university. Guess what? We learn Physics as a science. But we take science in a relation that it is the language God used to make order out of chaos. Nobody knows HOW the laws came about, and I for one don't think they just HAPPENED. I don't beleive order comes from chaos by itself. People who 'worship' science essensialy beleive that, that the universe came to the order it does out of the chaos of no laws of pre-big bang. The mass exploded and Voila, the laws just happened. If there are other methods of the creation of science, I've yet to hear them.

All this talk about deciding wether or not to allow the teaching if intelligent design in classrooms got me thinking. Why not preach physics in church? I mean it's something you can have selective faith in, like gravity right? Oh sure during the Apollo 15 lunar landing one of the astronauts did drop two objects simultaniously in the moon's gravitational field and they hit the ground at the same time but THAT doesn't prove anything! Maybe if we change the name of physics to "Analytical Faith" it may become more acceptable to church-goers and maybe even trick a few people into thinking it's an actual religious belief. What do you think about that? ;)

/sarcasm
Why sarcasm? My beliefs are based at least as much on science as on spirituality. Modern science has moved into areas that either directly or indirectly support some of the oldest thinking in religion. As I have said before, and will most likely say again, there is no essential conflict between science and belief.

I go to LeTourneau University in Longview, Texas. The University is very well known for turning out top-knotch Engineers (and pilots and programmers, but they're outside my point). LeTourneau University is also a private Christain university. Guess what? We learn Physics as a science. But we take science in a relation that it is the language God used to make order out of chaos. Nobody knows HOW the laws came about, and I for one don't think they just HAPPENED. I don't beleive order comes from chaos by itself. People who 'worship' science essensialy beleive that, that the universe came to the order it does out of the chaos of no laws of pre-big bang. The mass exploded and Voila, the laws just happened. If there are other methods of the creation of science, I've yet to hear them.
Nobody worships science.

Your school is pretty shitty at teaching sciences if they tell you that.

Also, if that's the way they explained the big bang, then wow. That's abysmal.

Nobody worships science.

Your school is pretty shitty at teaching sciences if they tell you that.


Then you must think Rockwell Collins is a pretty shitty company, because they our Engineers, and IBM a shitty company for hiring our programmers (We have to study University Physics too).

Also, if that's the way they explained the big bang, then wow. That's abysmal.


That's what the public school system taught me.

No. Church is for teaching church stuff, Bible etc.

Physics class is for teaching Physics.

Evolution.. Um.. shouldn't that be Biology class?

Then you must think Rockwell Collins is a pretty shitty company, because they our Engineers, and IBM a shitty company for hiring our programmers (We have to study University Physics too).
If your description of the big bang came from your university education, then I'm sure those companies are having serious issues with the graduates from your school.

Unless, of course, they are bright enough to look into things for themselves, outside the education your school is providing them. You demonstrate a terrible understanding of science, and if that's what they teach at your school, then I just can't find the words to describe how terrible that is.

That's what the public school system taught me.
ooooooooooooooh...


I see.

Highschools do a terrible job at teaching physics. But you don't get the proper grounding in maths until the end of highschool, so they can't really do much else.

But yeah, seriously dude, your explanation of the big bang was atrocious at best.

ooooooooooooooh...


I see.

Highschools do a terrible job at teaching physics. But you don't get the proper grounding in maths until the end of highschool, so they can't really do much else.

But yeah, seriously dude, your explanation of the big bang was atrocious at best.

Then please. Englighten me to the orgins of science.

Me like the idea very much.

Take the war to the enemy camp ! :D

Me like the idea very much.

Take the war to the enemy camp ! :D

You consiter me the enemy and you don't even know me? Wow.

Then please. Englighten me to the orgins of science.
?
You quoted me when I was saying that your explanation of the big bang was terrible. Did you want the origins of science or the origins of the universe?

I said that you had a misunderstanding of the whole idea of science and that your concept of the origin of the universe was severely messed up.

It would also mean that (gasp!) certain NSers would have to stop generalizing the entire southern portion of the US as being inhabited by nothing but hicks living in shacks wielding hopelessly outdated shotguns.
Ill have you know, my grandfather owns a quite modern shotgun.

I've been living here in the South my entire life and I've never met any of those "hicks" others mention. :) I also don't own a shotgun.

?
You quoted me when I was saying that your explanation of the big bang was terrible. Did you want the origins of science or the origins of the universe?

I said that you had a misunderstanding of the whole idea of science and that your concept of the origin of the universe was severely messed up.

With the type of gravity the ball of mass had at the begining of universe, I don't understand what kind of force can overcome that sort of ball apart, and what can bring that kind of force around. So I don't understand how science existed before that moment, its beyond my comprehension.

I wouldn't mind seeing physics (I almost spelled psychic :p) in church. Maybe then I would be somewhat interested in attending. I think that nature and the world are quite wondrous. And if you talked about it using physics and terminology similar to that, church would be quite a special place.

I'll show you where you talk about non-science as though it is science in your initial post.

IWe learn Physics as a science. But we take science in a relation that it is the language God used to make order out of chaos.
See, right here. Science isn't about the language of god.
Science is about empirical observations and explaining how what we observe came to be using exclusively natural methods. Whether there is a god or not is completely irrelevant scientifically speaking. Science does not "speak to god" science does not "listen to god" we do not seek to "speak god's language" none of that. That is not science you are referring to, that is philosophy and/or religion. It demonstrates a poor understanding of science for you to even say something like this.

Nobody knows HOW the laws came about, and I for one don't think they just HAPPENED. I don't beleive order comes from chaos by itself.
And that's fine. You can have your own personal beliefs. Just don't start calling them science and we have no issue here.

People who 'worship' science essensialy beleive that, that the universe came to the order it does out of the chaos of no laws of pre-big bang. The mass exploded and Voila, the laws just happened. If there are other methods of the creation of science, I've yet to hear them.
As I mentioned earlier, nobody worships science.
I should also mention that there is no "pre-big bang" at least not that we can observe, since the big bang was the birth of spacetime as we know it, there was no time before the big bang, thus no before. Furthermore, at the outset, there was no mass, there was matter, composed of extremely high energy photons, which through pair formation and with a slight asymmetry in matter/antimatter formation, eventually became quarks and electrons and protons and neutrons and when the universe cooled down enough, atoms et c. The foud fundamental forces separated out from this. (Note that this is a poor explanation of the big bang, but I'm not about to draw you pictures or spend all night explaining it to you when there's a plethora of information at your fingertips)
The big bang being described as an explosion is a poor way to characterize it. It's more of an expansion.

Furthermore, you are stating that in your poor understanding of the big bang and physics in general, that these things couldn't have happened without a creator deity, but again, you have an extremely poor understanding of what's being discussed. Perhaps instead of making things up about scientists, you should learn from them. Expand your bubble a bit, it might alleviate some of your terrible bias.

With the type of gravity the ball of mass had at the begining of universe, I don't understand what kind of force can overcome that sort of ball apart, and what can bring that kind of force around. So I don't understand how science existed before that moment, its beyond my comprehension.
You don't understand how science existed?
Science is a methodology created by humanity in order to further understand our universe. Science (as we know it) did not start until well after humans evolved. (It may be that the scientific method was developed in other places in the universe before, but not by us and we don't know about it anyways...)

Seriously, what do you think science is?

And also, as I mentioned, there wasn't mass in the beginning. There was matter in the form of photons. Furthermore, gravity was the last of the four fundamental forces to separate out.

See, right here. Science isn't about the language of god.
Science is about empirical observations and explaining how what we observe came to be using exclusively natural methods. Whether there is a god or not is completely irrelevant scientifically speaking. Science does not "speak to god" science does not "listen to god" we do not seek to "speak god's language" none of that. That is not science you are referring to, that is philosophy and/or religion. It demonstrates a poor understanding of science for you to even say something like this.

That's the problem between people like you and people like me. I do believe that God created science to bring thigns about. I don't see things turning out the way they have for it without something behind it. When left to purely chance, I think humans just coming into existance was something on the matter of quadrillions to one.



As I mentioned earlier, nobody worships science.

People who beleive God is in control, worship God. People who beleive science is in control, worship science.


I should also mention that there is no "pre-big bang" at least not that we can observe, since the big bang was the birth of spacetime as we know it, there was no time before the big bang, thus no before. Furthermore, at the outset, there was no mass, there was matter, composed of extremely high energy photons, which through pair formation and with a slight asymmetry in matter/antimatter formation, eventually became quarks and electrons and protons and neutrons and when the universe cooled down enough, atoms et c. The foud fundamental forces separated out from this. (Note that this is a poor explanation of the big bang, but I'm not about to draw you pictures or spend all night explaining it to you when there's a plethora of information at your fingertips)
The big bang being described as an explosion is a poor way to characterize it. It's more of an expansion.

If there was no pre-bang, then how did the mass get together? Perhaps another universe collapses in on itself? Then how did that universe come to pass?

Furthermore, you are stating that in your poor understanding of the big bang and physics in general, that these things couldn't have happened without a creator deity, but again, you have an extremely poor understanding of what's being discussed. Perhaps instead of making things up about scientists, you should learn from them. Expand your bubble a bit, it might alleviate some of your terrible bias.

A faithless beginning has its problems. It doesn't explain the true beginning of things, the red shift and background radiation being the only evidence I know of to point to the big bang.
But I also understand how Creation doesn't tick with people. People don't understand how an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnitemporal being can exist. I guess we can only conclude that Creationists and.. Scientists? Evolutionsits? Well, they will never see eye to eye. So the best we can manage is to TRY to have intellegent conversation, and avoid pointing fingers at eachother.

You don't understand how science existed?
Science is a methodology created by humanity in order to further understand our universe. Science (as we know it) did not start until well after humans evolved. (It may be that the scientific method was developed in other places in the universe before, but not by us and we don't know about it anyways...)

Seriously, what do you think science is?

And also, as I mentioned, there wasn't mass in the beginning. There was matter in the form of photons. Furthermore, gravity was the last of the four fundamental forces to separate out.


Science will have to have existed before humanity became aware of it, otherwise everything would be in complete flux before somebody decided to start investigating it... And I thought a property of matter was it had mass, so I'm not so sure about that.

That's the problem between people like you and people like me. I do believe that God created science to bring thigns about. I don't see things turning out the way they have for it without something behind it. When left to purely chance, I think humans just coming into existance was something on the matter of quadrillions to one.
Humans created science. Science != the universe or its laws. Science is a methodology.
And furthermore, what you believe has no place in science.

People who beleive God is in control, worship God. People who beleive science is in control, worship science.
No one believes science is in control. Those who find scientific theories to be quite likely do not worship science either.

If there was no pre-bang, then how did the mass get together? Perhaps another universe collapses in on itself? Then how did that universe come to pass?
Whatever happened "before" the big bang cannot be observed from within our universe. It is not possible to form scientific theories about what happened in this "time" before time. At best, we can hazard guesses and perhaps rule some things out.
Again, there wasn't a mass at the beginning of the universe, there was a singularity and then matter. There are many suggestions for how this singularity came about, from a multiverse where universes form like stars in our own universe do to vacuum fluctuations. The oscillating universe does not seem likely, due to the density of the current universe, the expansion appears to be accelerating.

A faithless beginning has its problems. It doesn't explain the true beginning of things, the red shift and background radiation being the only evidence I know of to point to the big bang.
Faith does not have a place in science. Also, Stephen Hawking seems to consider a creator unnecessary, I'm inclined to agree, it does seem quite possible for the universe to have come about on its own.

But I also understand how Creation doesn't tick with people. People don't understand how an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnitemporal being can exist. I guess we can only conclude that Creationists and.. Scientists? Evolutionsits? Well, they will never see eye to eye. So the best we can manage is to TRY to have intellegent conversation, and avoid pointing fingers at eachother.
Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific. You can go on all you wish about how scientists should see things your way, the fact of the matter is that science doesn't care.

O RLY?

YA RLY!

Okay. I'm sorry, I'm done now. Anyways... uhm... I really don't have anything to contribute, but I couldn't resist that one. :D

Science will have to have existed before humanity became aware of it, otherwise everything would be in complete flux before somebody decided to start investigating it... And I thought a property of matter was it had mass, so I'm not so sure about that.
I don't think you know what science is.

Matter is a term that encompasses both mass and energy. There is a huge difference.

Science will have to have existed before humanity became aware of it, otherwise everything would be in complete flux before somebody decided to start investigating it...
Uh... science is a method, not a thing. You seem to be suggesting that everything was in flux till humans came and looked at it (which is another thread). That's what science is, looking at something then logically explaining the how (never the why) of the thing, then attempting to see if they are right by predicting the how again and seeing if it does it.

Creationism or ID attempts to put a WHY on the how. That is where they fail as science, because science isn't interested in why's, only hows.

Uh... science is a method, not a thing. You seem to be suggesting that everything was in flux till humans came and looked at it (which is another thread). That's what science is, looking at something then logically explaining the how (never the why) of the thing, then attempting to see if they are right by predicting the how again and seeing if it does it.

Creationism or ID attempts to put a WHY on the how. That is where they fail as science, because science isn't interested in why's, only hows.
Science is concerned to some extent with the whys.
For instance, "why does light appear to have momentum?"...
Creationism and intelligent design fail as scientific theories because they fail to provide falsifiable and testable predictions. Well, creationism fails because it's thoroughly debnked. Intelligent design just says "Exactly how everyone else says it happens, but god was behind it."

Science is concerned to some extent with the whys.
For instance, "why does light appear to have momentum?"...
*grins* That's a how disquised as a why due to English grammar.
Why's, in this case refers to the purpose behind something, which is what ID is saying. There's a purpose behind why happen to be here looking like we do, instead of science with the viewpoint of how did we get to looking like the way we do.

Or to put it another way, science is interested in how gravity pulls things down, it doesn't particuarly care WHY gravity decided to pull things down. ;)

All this talk about deciding wether or not to allow the teaching if intelligent design in classrooms got me thinking. Why not preach physics in church? I mean it's something you can have selective faith in, like gravity right? Oh sure during the Apollo 15 lunar landing one of the astronauts did drop two objects simultaniously in the moon's gravitational field and they hit the ground at the same time but THAT doesn't prove anything! Maybe if we change the name of physics to "Analytical Faith" it may become more acceptable to church-goers and maybe even trick a few people into thinking it's an actual religious belief. What do you think about that? ;)

/sarcasm
Those of us in the Christian community that have studied evolution in depth can all agree that it is based more in Faith than facts. There are so called facts that are leaving HUGE gaps in the THEORY of evolution. If the schools are teaching the religion of Darwinism then they should be taching the other religions on the EXACT same scale and if one is taught as fact then so should the others. I am not saying this about Christianity alone but Islam, Judaism, Buddism, etc... What it all comes down to they are all faiths and while I believe that Christianity is the True path others find another faith better for themselves. In the end we will all answer on the other side to whoever/whatever is waiting.

Uh... science is a method, not a thing. You seem to be suggesting that everything was in flux till humans came and looked at it (which is another thread). That's what science is, looking at something then logically explaining the how (never the why) of the thing, then attempting to see if they are right by predicting the how again and seeing if it does it.

Creationism or ID attempts to put a WHY on the how. That is where they fail as science, because science isn't interested in why's, only hows.
Actually Intelligent Design is just as sceintific as Darwinism. Both have to be taken more on Faith than on actual Facts. This is the major reason that Christians are upset about it being taught as fact when it is still called the THEORY of evolution. It hasn't been changed to the law of evolution because Scientists every where know that it can not meet the requirements to take away the Theory part.

Faith does not have a place in science.
I appreciate your point, but I must disagree. Ultimately everything we accept, we accept on faith. Faith that since the last time I dropped a hammer it fell to the ground, next time I drop a hammer it will do the same. Faith that because the genetic code has been the same in every organism we've studied, the genetic code will be the same in every organism. Faith that what Stephen Hawking says is true. Faith that Stephen Hawking or you or I can even reason things out. Faith that what we observe is the actual reality of things. Science is faith no less than any system of religion or spirituality.

I don't think it needs to be, it should be tought in school. If a preacher wants to talk about physics, that's her choice I guess, but I think it would be a bit authoritarian to require that churches preach physics. That's not why I go to church, I go to school to learn about science and such.

Physics belongs in schools, thought I agree preachers and members of the church (and other religions) can and probably will discuss these issues in their chosen religious environments. But I don’t believe this should become the primary method of teaching many young children about science, or any other subject except religious and faith based, Christianity along with most other religion will want to personalise many subjects and long accepted facts to their religion alone and I’m sure be willing to distort the truth to fit around their ideology and belief systems (God created Gravity etc). Science is based around facts though they may be ever changing and science facts today may not be facts tomorrow, as this is the case schools and science teachers are best suited to keep up with the ever changing and confusing facts that emerge and best suited to explain other points of views so the children receive a well rounded education. If left to the church these facts would be changed to suit the preacher, many of the facts would be badly researched and quite possibly wrong

Oh boy... fresh meat.
Those of us in the Christian community that have studied evolution in depth can all agree that it is based more in Faith than facts. There are so called facts that are leaving HUGE gaps in the THEORY of evolution. If the schools are teaching the religion of Darwinism then they should be taching the other religions on the EXACT same scale and if one is taught as fact then so should the others.
Ok, prove it, as the OP asked. Set up a hypothesis to test, the same way that evolution is constantly tested.

Can't do? Then SHOW me the large gaps in evolution that shows it relies on faith. Please try, this should be entertaining.

Actually Intelligent Design is just as sceintific as Darwinism. Both have to be taken more on Faith than on actual Facts. This is the major reason that Christians are upset about it being taught as fact when it is still called the THEORY of evolution. It hasn't been changed to the law of evolution because Scientists every where know that it can not meet the requirements to take away the Theory part.
One, Darwinism isn't a faith, Darwinism doesn't mean ANYTHING as evolution isn't a faith with a creed, it's a scientific theory. It's as absurde as saying you believe in gravityism. The second part of that statement shows you have no understanding of the difference between a law and a science theory. Science never proves ANYTHING beyond a shadow of a doubt, that is why theories abound because, just once, it could be wrong. Laws, as you have termed them, are physical descriptions, nothing more. That's why the famous E=MC^2 is a theory, no matter how many times we have proved it. It's why any number of "facts" are based upon theories. However, in science, a theory is more than just a hunch, it is a tested and testable set of hypothesies that have held up over many, many attempts to shake them.

Saying that evolution isn't true because it's only a theory and not a law would be akin to saying your computer shouldn't work because it is derived and based upon theories of computing, but not laws.

YA RLY!

Okay. I'm sorry, I'm done now. Anyways... uhm... I really don't have anything to contribute, but I couldn't resist that one. :D …………………………………….__,,,,,,,---,,,,,,_…………………………………………………………
…………………………_,,,--~’’¯¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’’-,,_………………………………………………….
…………………….,-~’’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’~,_……………………………………………
…………………,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~-,,………………………………………
……………..,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; _,,_ ; ; ;¯’-,…………………………………..
…………..,-‘’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘’_ ¯’-,\ ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………………………
…………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,,-~’’’’’~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-‘;;;’, : ;||; ; ; ; ; ‘,……………………………….
……….,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;,-‘/ :,-~’’~, : ‘,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,-‘ : // ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………………..
……..,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,| : ‘-,;;;;,-‘ : /’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ¯’’’¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,……………………………
…….,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,,___,,-~’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’~,, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,………………………….
…….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-,;;’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-………………………….
……,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-;;;;| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; |…………………………
……| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,-‘,;;;;|’’-~ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,…………………………
......| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;---,,,,,,,_,,,,-~’’, ‘-,;;;| ,,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………….
……| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯’’~-,,,_ , , , , , , ‘,;,’,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;\……………………….
……| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,~-,, , ,,’’,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………………
……’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘’-,,¯’’;;;;| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………………
…….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’’-,_,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,………………………
…….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’,……………………..
……..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \…………………….
………\ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘,……………………
……….’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|……………………
………..| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,………………….
………..’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ,,--~~--,, ; ; ; ; ;,--------,, ; ,--~, ; ; ,,-~, ; ;,--,,;,,-~~-,, ; ; ; ; ; ;’,………………..
…………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ,-‘’ . ,,--,, . ‘-, ; ; ; ;| . ,-,, . ‘, | . . | ; ;’-, . .\,,/ . ./’-,,--, . ‘, ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,………………
…………| ; ; ; ; ; ; | . .,’ ; ; ;’, . .| ; ; ; | . .’-‘ . ,-‘ | . . | ; ; ; ‘-, . . .,-‘ ; ;,-‘ . ,-‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,…………….
…………’, ; ; ; ; ; ;’, . ‘-,__,-‘ . ,’ ; ; ; | . .|\ . .\ . | . . |___ ; ;} . . / ; ; ;’----‘ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,………….
………….| ; ; ; ; ; ; ;’-,,_ . ._,,-‘ ; ; ; ; |__| .\__\ ;|_____/ ; ;/__/ ; ; ; ; (¯) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,…………
…….......’, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ‘-,………
…………,’ ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;-,,_……
…………| ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

Anyways, does anyone else think they should teach comparative fiction in a church, not physics? Seems more appropriate to me.

-snip-
Jeeeezuz!

Newtonian physics was once taught in Anglican churches, and the reformation was seen as part of the enlightenment and scientism by both physisists and priests.

As for gaps in the evidence for evolution, in a sense they are there. For example there is a period of a couple of million years when chimps and humans separated from which we have nearly no fossils. This period contain the whole speciation process between chimp and human, and we know so little about it that biologists don't even agree on wether or not the early humans lived in water for a while, or if they stayed in the dry areas with the chimps. Most biologists say there is no reason to believe in the water stage and cut it out, but there are serious biologists who say it is a good theory, and there is not sufficient evidence to actually disprove it.

As for gaps in the evidence for evolution, in a sense they are there. For example there is a period of a couple of million years when chimps and humans separated from which we have nearly no fossils. This period contain the whole speciation process between chimp and human, and we know so little about it that biologists don't even agree on wether or not the early humans lived in water for a while, or if they stayed in the dry areas with the chimps. Most biologists say there is no reason to believe in the water stage and cut it out, but there are serious biologists who say it is a good theory, and there is not sufficient evidence to actually disprove it.
They call that a denial of the antecedent. A logical fallacy. It really doesn't prove anything.

They call that a denial of the antecedent. A logical fallacy. It really doesn't prove anything.
Uh, what? I never said it was proof against darwinism. And I did not post any evidence for the aquatic ape theory. If you want such, there is, but it is so much beside the point that I will not post any here. The only thing your quoted passage was supposed to do was to point out that you might not want to argue in the negative about fossil evidence, since there is so much we don't have. And do it in a slightly humorous way.

nnnnnnngggggggghhhhh! I don't do humour though I do like the aquatic ape theory. It gives me hope that one day I'll learn how to swim.

nnnnnnngggggggghhhhh! I don't do humour though I do like the aquatic ape theory. It gives me hope that one day I'll learn how to swim.Sorry, but Lamarckism got replaced with Darwinism... :p

This thread would explain why we dont get thrown off the earth as it's spinning like we are supposed to according to physics
:confused:

And God said, "The divergence of the B-field equals zero"; and there was light. (Genesis 1:3)

*grins* That's a how disquised as a why due to English grammar.
Why's, in this case refers to the purpose behind something, which is what ID is saying. There's a purpose behind why happen to be here looking like we do, instead of science with the viewpoint of how did we get to looking like the way we do.

Or to put it another way, science is interested in how gravity pulls things down, it doesn't particuarly care WHY gravity decided to pull things down. ;)
Fair enough. :)

Replied other …

The religion itself might incorporate the teaching of “physics” as a portion of its doctrine

Just because science can’t include the supernatural does not mean that religion can’t include science

Those of us in the Christian community that have studied evolution in depth can all agree that it is based more in Faith than facts.
The majority of the christian community who as actually studied evolution disagrees with you.

There are so called facts that are leaving HUGE gaps in the THEORY of evolution.
Oh please, do tell about these huge gaps.
Also, since evolution is a theory, that alone denotes a lack of absolute faith in it, don't you think? Odd that you emphasize the word, yet ignore it in your previous sentence.

If the schools are teaching the religion of Darwinism then they should be taching the other religions on the EXACT same scale and if one is taught as fact then so should the others. I am not saying this about Christianity alone but Islam, Judaism, Buddism, etc... What it all comes down to they are all faiths
For one thing, Darwinism isn't a religion, and the fact that you call it that tells me that you don't know a damn thing about evolution.
For another, the other creation myths can be taught, in a class that is not a science class. Then you can teach it all you want. Kids coming out of highschool have a terrible concept of science already, we don't need to make it worse by teaching non-science in a science class.

Actually Intelligent Design is just as sceintific as Darwinism. Both have to be taken more on Faith than on actual Facts.
Not true at all.

This is the major reason that Christians are upset about it being taught as fact when it is still called the THEORY of evolution. It hasn't been changed to the law of evolution because Scientists every where know that it can not meet the requirements to take away the Theory part.
Scientists don't make scientific laws anymore. Everything that is recent is a theory. Evolution is a well grounded, well tested theory. If you knew the first thing about actual science, then you would know that.

Olara']I appreciate your point, but I must disagree. Ultimately everything we accept, we accept on faith. Faith that since the last time I dropped a hammer it fell to the ground, next time I drop a hammer it will do the same.
Well, if next time you dropped a hammer to the ground, it remained suspended in the air, then you'll just have disproven Newton's laws. Unless something else was acting as a sort of normal force to your hammer, preventing its fall.

Faith that because the genetic code has been the same in every organism we've studied, the genetic code will be the same in every organism.
The genetic code is different in every organism.

Faith that what Stephen Hawking says is true. Faith that Stephen Hawking or you or I can even reason things out.
If you study math and/or physics you don't need to have faith in Stephen Hawking's word.

Faith that what we observe is the actual reality of things. Science is faith no less than any system of religion or spirituality.
I disagree.

All this talk about deciding wether or not to allow the teaching if intelligent design in classrooms got me thinking. Why not preach physics in church? I mean it's something you can have selective faith in, like gravity right? Oh sure during the Apollo 15 lunar landing one of the astronauts did drop two objects simultaniously in the moon's gravitational field and they hit the ground at the same time but THAT doesn't prove anything! Maybe if we change the name of physics to "Analytical Faith" it may become more acceptable to church-goers and maybe even trick a few people into thinking it's an actual religious belief. What do you think about that? ;)

/sarcasm

Church is for religion. Science class is for science.

This thread would explain why we dont get thrown off the earth as it's spinning like we are supposed to according to physics
:confused:
?!?
What the hell was wrong with your physics instructor??

Church is for religion. Science class is for science.
This thread is humour in response to the intelligent design people trying to put their religion into everybody's science classes.

This thread is humour in response to the intelligent design people trying to put their religion into everybody's science classes.
Hey if a religion wants to incorporate science into its teachings … nothing holding them back lol

Unlike science having the inability to figure in the supernatural religions are welcome to explain the natural any way they like (it may not be correct but they don’t have the limitations science does in this respect)

I go to LeTourneau University in Longview, Texas. The University is very well known for turning out top-knotch Engineers (and pilots and programmers, but they're outside my point). LeTourneau University is also a private Christain university. Guess what? We learn Physics as a science. But we take science in a relation that it is the language God used to make order out of chaos. Nobody knows HOW the laws came about, and I for one don't think they just HAPPENED. I don't beleive order comes from chaos by itself. People who 'worship' science essensialy beleive that, that the universe came to the order it does out of the chaos of no laws of pre-big bang. The mass exploded and Voila, the laws just happened. If there are other methods of the creation of science, I've yet to hear them.

Nobody "worships" science, we just find a far more convincing and credible truth in science than in all religions combined.

Why sarcasm? My beliefs are based at least as much on science as on spirituality. Modern science has moved into areas that either directly or indirectly support some of the oldest thinking in religion. As I have said before, and will most likely say again, there is no essential conflict between science and belief.

There is one hell of a big conflict. Science works with facts - religion works with fairy stories.

And if you can find one place where you think science supports religion I would love to correct your your error.

You consiter me the enemy and you don't even know me? Wow.

I would not consider you an enemy, but I would feel sad for you as you clearly have had either a poor education or are seriously lacking in the IQ stakes.

As I've said before, it is sad reflection on modern education that people can leave school still believing in the fairy stories of religion.

I know this thread is sarcastic and not to be taken seriously, but I'm going to go ahead and put a serious responce.

I have mixed feelings about teaching physics in church. The reasoning for this is that I've been to churches were the pastor will try to use physics as an example of the mysterious of the universe or point to some aspect of physics not enitrely known yet and say that must be God. Or most often just made silly arguments based on missunderstood physics. I had one who actually said that there must be a God because physics can't explain how an atom is held together otherwise (this was a while ago so maybe it wasn't worded to sound quite that bad). I've also been tourched by vein attempts at satistical analysis saying that the universe as we know it would only be possible if certain physical constants were tweaked just right and its statistically impossible for such a universe to arrise by chance.

I said other instead of no to the idea of physics in church, because if the pastor actually understood physics and used it in a sensible manor I would be okay with it and would actually enjoy it. But since most pastors don't know any more phsyics then the average person they usually end up butchering it and embarissing themselves. The pastor of the current church I go to is one of the most intelligent guys I have met and I actually imagine if he got into physics he would get it right. He's also smart enough to realize his knowledge in that area is limited and maybe he best be silent about it.

Hm, I wonder how you could apply this to intelligent design. I bet non-IDers who are forced to teach ID by their school board butcher the "theory" because it makes no sense to them.

There is one hell of a big conflict. Science works with facts - religion works with fairy stories.

And if you can find one place where you think science supports religion I would love to correct your your error.
Being purposefully spiteful is not the way to convince anybody and is absolutely non constructive to debate

Physics is just a set of laws that goveren why things happen the way they do. Friction, gravity etc. are all laws that have been discovered and tested over and over. Proving that things fall down doesnt mean there is or isnt a god or a godly presense that makes things so.

Who knows, perhaps if a intelligent designer did create the entire universe then it would be powerful enough to create the laws to goveren would it not?

As physics being taught in church I think is totaly unrelated. Its like teaching math in a english class or music in a chemistry class.

With the type of gravity the ball of mass had at the begining of universe, I don't understand what kind of force can overcome that sort of ball apart, and what can bring that kind of force around. So I don't understand how science existed before that moment, its beyond my comprehension.

There was no gravity. Gravity is a product of mass, there was no mass at the moment of the big bang - only energy. Sub-atomic particles did not come into existance until the universe was about 10*2^-20 seconds old and for a long time were destroyed almost instantly.

Now, if you want to really understand the BB you need to read up on P-Brane theory and 11 dimension geometry.

Ok kiddies, here's something else to think about. This is why I see a CLEAR distinction between ID and actual science. Let's say there's two teams of engineers hired by the goverment to design and build a stealth multirole advantage fighter aircraft and they gave team "A" a set of instructions containing scientific methods to produce this craft. Now let's say they gave team "B" an "alternative" set of instructions containing religious practices and suggestions on how to conjure up the different parts. Which team do YOU think would get the job done?

I'm rooting for team "A" because they'll be using technological procedures to get the job done, you can't possibly build something so purely based in technology out of faith.

I would not consider you an enemy, but I would feel sad for you as you clearly have had either a poor education or are seriously lacking in the IQ stakes.

As I've said before, it is sad reflection on modern education that people can leave school still believing in the fairy stories of religion.

I believe in a God, but think life arose through evolution (which God put into place). This belief isn't based on any provable evidence. If I claimed that I would be an idiot. Rather it is based on a strong sense that God is there. A feeling that I'm lead to do certain things (don't get too frightened they have all been things like love this person, or help this person out). And just the strange coincidences of life that seem too perfect to be anything but God. As It's not an intelligence thing, but could be insanity. I have no proff otherwise and I guess insanity is as good as an explanation as their being a God. If that's the case somehow I've remained quite sane in other aspects of life and somehow this insanity has worked out better for me in the long run. I'm confident enough in my own sanity to think that it is God that I sense.

I believe in a God, but think life arose through evolution (which God put into place).
Life did not arise through evolution
Evolutionary theory does not cover the creation of life
Abiogenisis does

I believe in a God, but think life arose through evolution (which God put into place). This belief isn't based on any provable evidence. If I claimed that I would be an idiot. Rather it is based on a strong sense that God is there. A feeling that I'm lead to do certain things (don't get too frightened they have all been things like love this person, or help this person out). And just the strange coincidences of life that seem too perfect to be anything but God. As It's not an intelligence thing, but could be insanity. I have no proff otherwise and I guess insanity is as good as an explanation as their being a God. If that's the case somehow I've remained quite sane in other aspects of life and somehow this insanity has worked out better for me in the long run. I'm confident enough in my own sanity to think that it is God that I sense.

How is it insanity to be religous? I dont understand why it is so painful to athiests to know other people belive in god or gods. All things considered I would rather be religious and be wrong then being an athiest and be wrong.

Think about it...

How is it insanity to be religous? I dont understand why it is so painful to athiests to know other people belive in god or gods. All things considered I would rather be religious and be wrong then being an athiest and be wrong.

Think about it...

I have no belief and most certainly no respect for any god who brings its creations to their knees to worship its mighty ego for the hell of it. I'd rather live life how I want to, I much rather be wrong the way I'm living life because if I am right just imagine how much time in your life you would have wasted being religious, how much dedication to absoloutely nothing that would have been flushed down the toilet of life.

Those of us in the Christian community that have studied evolution in depth can all agree that it is based more in Faith than facts. There are so called facts that are leaving HUGE gaps in the THEORY of evolution. If the schools are teaching the religion of Darwinism then they should be taching the other religions on the EXACT same scale and if one is taught as fact then so should the others. I am not saying this about Christianity alone but Islam, Judaism, Buddism, etc... What it all comes down to they are all faiths and while I believe that Christianity is the True path others find another faith better for themselves. In the end we will all answer on the other side to whoever/whatever is waiting.

So you would rather believe in fairy stories than accept proven science. And before yo come back with "HUGE gaps in the THEORY of evolution" there are none. The theory has been proven, over and over again, by strict scientific observation. If evolution did not happen then we would have no new diseases for a start.

Those of us in the Christian community that have studied evolution in depth can all agree that it is based more in Faith than facts. There are so called facts that are leaving HUGE gaps in the THEORY of evolution. If the schools are teaching the religion of Darwinism then they should be taching the other religions on the EXACT same scale and if one is taught as fact then so should the others. I am not saying this about Christianity alone but Islam, Judaism, Buddism, etc... What it all comes down to they are all faiths and while I believe that Christianity is the True path others find another faith better for themselves. In the end we will all answer on the other side to whoever/whatever is waiting.

Don't mean to be harsh, but as a molecular biologist and a Christian I find this offensive. I believe in evolution because of overwhelming evidence in support of it. I highly doubt you have studied or understood this evidence otherwise you wouldn't deny it's existance. Don't feel too insulted, most of the evolution supporters in these debates clearly don't understand the evidence either and a lot do support evolution only on faith. I don't care if you don't believe it, but I'm tired of hearing people claim this evidence doesn't exist. Just a quick google search will give you all kinds of evidence for evolution. The best evidence is genetic, while the fossil record is somewhat questionable at times. There is not a shread of evidence for intelligent design. I do believe in God, but it's from a personal sense of His existance, not because of scientific evidence. If this belief leads you to believe in a literal interpretation of genesis then okay, I can deal with that. But please don't simply deny the existance of evidence for evolution simply because you don't want to believe it.

As a side note I also take offense to your concept of faith. So far I have used it the same way you have defined it. But faith means complete trust. It doesn't mean "believing without evidence" or "believing without reason." People are said to have faith in God because they give their lives over to Him in an act of complete trust. Anyone who "believes in something without reason" is an idiot (I'm not saying you believe in God for no reason there are plenty of reasons to believe in God). I think the Bible even says believing in something without reason is stupidity. I will quote it if I find it.

Actually Intelligent Design is just as sceintific as Darwinism. Both have to be taken more on Faith than on actual Facts. This is the major reason that Christians are upset about it being taught as fact when it is still called the THEORY of evolution. It hasn't been changed to the law of evolution because Scientists every where know that it can not meet the requirements to take away the Theory part.


You misunderstand the difference between "theory" and "A Theory".

How is it insanity to be religous? I dont understand why it is so painful to athiests to know other people belive in god or gods. All things considered I would rather be religious and be wrong then being an athiest and be wrong.

Think about it...
I would not stereotype if I were you … some of us atheists have no such problem understanding how someone could hypothetically believe in a god without believing ourselves
Oh by the way Pascal’s wager is flawed I would not bother trying that hedging your bets thing.

Life did not arise through evolution
Evolutionary theory does not cover the creation of life
Abiogenisis does

sorry, I know that. I just misspoke. I wasn't thinking that life itself arose through evolution. I was thinking that modern lifeforms arose through evolution [of previous forms of life] and used "life" in place of "modern lifeforms" not thinking that it would be mistaken to mean the origin of life itself.

Olara']I appreciate your point, but I must disagree. Ultimately everything we accept, we accept on faith. Faith that since the last time I dropped a hammer it fell to the ground, next time I drop a hammer it will do the same. Faith that because the genetic code has been the same in every organism we've studied, the genetic code will be the same in every organism. Faith that what Stephen Hawking says is true. Faith that Stephen Hawking or you or I can even reason things out. Faith that what we observe is the actual reality of things. Science is faith no less than any system of religion or spirituality.

If you drop a hammer and it does not fall then either you (and the hammer) are in free-fall or the hammer is held up by something else.

Science does not work on faith - faith is this strange thing religions demand because they don't have credible answers to the questions.

I believe in a God, but think life arose through evolution (which God put into place). This belief isn't based on any provable evidence. If I claimed that I would be an idiot. Rather it is based on a strong sense that God is there. A feeling that I'm lead to do certain things (don't get too frightened they have all been things like love this person, or help this person out). And just the strange coincidences of life that seem too perfect to be anything but God. As It's not an intelligence thing, but could be insanity. I have no proof otherwise and I guess insanity is as good as an explanation as their being a God. If that's the case somehow I've remained quite sane in other aspects of life and somehow this insanity has worked out better for me in the long run. I'm confident enough in my own sanity to think that it is God that I sense.
I accept your point, but I don't see any need for there to be a God. The world can be wondrous enough without adding in a deity. But we can both be insane in our own special ways. ;)

But it doesn't really matter what you or I believe in terms of God creating the laws of the universe or the laws just being a fundamental part of the universe. That doesn't matter to science. Because anyone can always make the argument that "something" created the laws. All science is interested in doing is explaining and predicting events and what we see in the world based on those laws.
How is it insanity to be religous? I dont understand why it is so painful to athiests to know other people belive in god or gods. All things considered I would rather be religious and be wrong then being an athiest and be wrong.
Think about it...
First off, Der Drache obviously isn't an athiest by the first sentence, but as an athiest, it's *not* painful to know that you believe in God. I frankly don't care. That's your belief system, and as long as you don't try to impose that system on me, that's fine.

Although I find the last statement a little sad, isn't that essentially hedging your bets? To be religious simply because it'll be better in the end for you? :rolleyes:

sorry, I know that. I just misspoke. I wasn't thinking that life itself arose through evolution. I was thinking that modern lifeforms arose through evolution [of previous forms of life] and used "life" in place of "modern lifeforms" not thinking that it would be mistaken to mean the origin of life itself.
I understand thats why I just pointed it out before someone roasted you on it :p

It's funny. This forum is full of threads like this and still people persist on insulting each others intelligence and being unnecessarily aggressive. What are you all trying to prove? Ever get the feeling this place is full of pride?

So someone you've never met and probably never will disagrees with you? Big deal. By all means correct each others errors, but please don't be so arrogant as to assume that the other person is 'stupid', that you couldn't possibly have misunderstood them or maybe even, perhaps, you might be wrong yourself?!

And can we please get away from nit-picking. Yes we know evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life (abiogenesis), but surely you're intelligent enough to understand what someone means when they type that? It looks like a cheap shot when you lay into someone over semantics.

I have no belief and most certainly no respect for any god who brings its creations to their knees to worship its mighty ego for the hell of it. I'd rather live life how I want to, I much rather be wrong the way I'm living life because if I am right just imagine how much time in your life you would have wasted being religious, how much dedication to absoloutely nothing that would have been flushed down the toilet of life.

I don't want to stray too far off topic, but I don't feel like I've wasted any time being religous. It's more of a lifestyle then it is a time commitment. Sure I go to church every Sunday, but I actually enjoy this. I've made a lot of great friends at church.

I have no belief and most certainly no respect for any god who brings its creations to their knees to worship its mighty ego for the hell of it. I'd rather live life how I want to, I much rather be wrong the way I'm living life because if I am right just imagine how much time in your life you would have wasted being religious, how much dedication to absoloutely nothing that would have been flushed down the toilet of life.


I still maintain what I have said. The billions who worship might be wrong then again I would rather religious and wrong then a atheist who is wrong. Besides many religions teach to be kind, forgiving and loving to others. Whats wrong with that even in the end that when they die nothing happens and their entire life of worship was devoted to helping others.

Ok. Crossed answers. Sorry UT - that wasn't a personal jab, but an example of picking up on something which isn't the main meaning of someone's post. But you explained above why.

I don't want to stray too far off topic, but I don't feel like I've wasted any time being religous. It's more of a lifestyle then it is a time commitment. Sure I go to church every Sunday, but I actually enjoy this. I've made a lot of great friends at church.


I would say if any thing this thread has done to me is for me to appreciate my choice nearly a year ago to turn to religion.

It's funny. This forum is full of threads like this and still people persist on insulting each others intelligence and being unnecessarily aggressive. What are you all trying to prove? Ever get the feeling this place is full of pride?

So someone you've never met and probably never will disagrees with you? Big deal. By all means correct each others errors, but please don't be so arrogant as to assume that the other person is 'stupid', that you couldn't possibly have misunderstood them or maybe even, perhaps, you might be wrong yourself?!

And can we please get away from nit-picking. Yes we know evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life (abiogenesis), but surely you're intelligent enough to understand what someone means when they type that? It looks like a cheap shot when you lay into someone over semantics.
No I don’t “know” that

It is a VERY common error we see from the religious side

Spend some more time on the forums you will be depressed at the amount of religious people that think evolution explains the origins of life

I still maintain what I have said. The billions who worship might be wrong then again I would rather religious and wrong then a atheist who is wrong. Besides many religions teach to be kind, forgiving and loving to others. Whats wrong with that even in the end that when they die nothing happens and their entire life of worship was devoted to helping others.
Google Pascal’s wager flaws … unless you want me to explain the massive errors and assumptions you make in referencing it.

I still maintain what I have said. The billions who worship might be wrong then again I would rather religious and wrong then a atheist who is wrong. Besides many religions teach to be kind, forgiving and loving to others. Whats wrong with that even in the end that when they die nothing happens and their entire life of worship was devoted to helping others.

I agree that its better to be religious and wrong then atheist and wrong. But I'm not sure one can decide to become Christian based on this reasoning. If you don't truely believe and are only acting as a Christian because you don't want to be wrong can you truely accept Christ? I'm not saying you can't have your doubts. I'm just saying you can't (or at least I can't) talk myself into believing in something that I don't.

Ok cause so many people have problems with understanding the massive holes in Pascal’s wager I will post the refutation



• How do you know which God to believe in? There are plenty to choose from, and if you pick the wrong one, you could be in big trouble (e.g. what if you choose Jesus, but get to heaven only to come face-to-trunk with Ganesh?). This is known as the "Avoiding the wrong Hell problem". If a dozen people of different religions came to you with Pascal's Wager, how could you possibly choose between them? After all, many religions are quite specific that they are the One True Religion, and not any others. Jesus Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the light. None shall come to the Father except through me." [emphasis added] and no doubt most other religions make similar claims. If a Christian considers the Wager as strong support for his faith, surely he must accept that it is equally valid for all other religions when presented to himself?
• God is not stupid. Won't He know that you're just trying to get a free ride into Heaven? How can you sincerely believe in a God simply out of convenience?
• If there is no God, you have still lost something. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing the various devotional rituals, attending Churches, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavours and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your Good News.
• Can you get away with just sort of generally believing in a Supreme Being, without specifically believing in one particular Deity? Probably not - God will still know what you're up to. Also, many Gods are quite particular about how they should be worshipped. Many born-again Christians will tell you that the only way to Heaven is through accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour - nothing more and nothing less. General-Deity-Belief and being nice simply won't do. Many people believe that all the different religions are merely alternative routes to the same destination. Nice and tolerant (if a little warm'n'fuzzy) though this may be, there is no valid reason to accept this stance over the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist position : if the fundies are right, then the un-Saved liberal theists are in just as much trouble as the nonbelievers.
• Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it (for example, see if you can choose to truly believe that Australia does not exist). Most atheists disbelieve simply because they know of no compelling evidence to suggest that any sort of god exists. If you want an atheist to believe, show her some good evidence, don't just say it's in her best interests to believe even if there is no god. A person cannot choose to sincerely believe in something, just because it is pragmatic to do so. Sure, you could say all the right prayers and attend church regularly, but that is not the same thing as actually believing, and any God worth his salt would obviously see straight through that.
• It is quite insulting. It amounts to a thinly veiled threat, little better than saying "Believe in my God or He'll send you to Hell" (in fact, this is often the form it is presented in). Also, the theist making this threat assumes that the atheist believes there is a Hell or a God to send her there in the first place. If you don't believe in Hell anyway, it's not a scary thing to be threatened with - a bit like saying "If you don't start believing in unicorns, one will trample you to death while you're sleeping." Who would be worried by that?
• It is often self-refuting, depending on the person's description of God. If you believe that God will forgive anyone for anything, or judge people purely on how they lived their life and not what they believed, or that everyone gets to Heaven regardless (unless maybe they were genocidal cannibal serial killers), then the Wager is meaningless. You might as well say "Believe in God, or you'll... erm... go to Heaven anyway." In such a case, it doesn't make a scrap of difference whether the person believes or not.
(I will try to find a more succinct version and post soon

This thread would explain why we dont get thrown off the earth as it's spinning like we are supposed to according to physics
:confused:

What a dumb thing to post.

You must have missed physics at school.

All this talk about deciding wether or not to allow the teaching if intelligent design in classrooms got me thinking. Why not preach physics in church? I mean it's something you can have selective faith in, like gravity right? Oh sure during the Apollo 15 lunar landing one of the astronauts did drop two objects simultaniously in the moon's gravitational field and they hit the ground at the same time but THAT doesn't prove anything! Maybe if we change the name of physics to "Analytical Faith" it may become more acceptable to church-goers and maybe even trick a few people into thinking it's an actual religious belief. What do you think about that? ;)

/sarcasm

Depends on the clergyman, I've met a Jesuit Astro-physicist, Brother Guy Consolmagno, found out recently he has a radio series on the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/briefhistory.shtml

How is it insanity to be religous? I dont understand why it is so painful to athiests to know other people belive in god or gods. All things considered I would rather be religious and be wrong then being an athiest and be wrong.

Think about it...

It is not insanity, but it is a mental problem.

Most people grow up, set aside the fairy stories of childhood, and stand on their own two feet to face a knowable universe without the need for supernatural beings to explain their existance.

Religious people fail to make that development step. They carry on believing in fairy stories and rely on the supernatural to support them when they come up against the unknown. They decry science because it has constantly explained things they would rather were unexplained and therefore attributable to their gods.

It is not insanity, but it is a mental problem.

Most people grow up, set aside the fairy stories of childhood, and stand on their own two feet to face a knowable universe without the need for supernatural beings to explain their existance.

Religious people fail to make that development step. They carry on believing in fairy stories and rely on the supernatural to support them when they come up against the unknown. They decry science because it has constantly explained things they would rather were unexplained and therefore attributable to their gods.


LOL, that's funny. As IF you can show any proof whatsoever that "most people" grow up to stand on their own two feet in a 'knowable' universe... :D

Hell, I'd bet that "most people" can't even find the Indian Ocean on an unmarked globe, you think they are going to know their place in the Universe? LMAO

Your statement itself sounds like a statement of faith as a matter of fact. :)

It is not insanity, but it is a mental problem.

They decry science because it has constantly explained things they would rather were unexplained and therefore attributable to their gods.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't decry science. I am a scientist and am quite found of it. Do I have mental problems? That may very well be true. ;)

LOL, that's funny. As IF you can show any proof whatsoever that "most people" grow up to stand on their own two feet in a 'knowable' universe... :D

Hell, I'd bet that "most people" can't even find the Indian Ocean on an unmarked globe, you think they are going to know their place in the Universe? LMAO

Your statement itself sounds like a statement of faith as a matter of fact. :)

The majority of the worlds population do not support religions that believe in a god.

Though the average number of legs is less than 2, and athough some people with two legs cannot stand on them, it is still safe to say that most people stand on their own two feet.


Now as for the growing up.... Ok, some don't, but those that do will reject the obviously false fairy stories of childhood.

The majority of the worlds population do not support religions that believe in a god.

Where did you get that idea? I've seen census reports that estimate that the athiest population is only 4.1% (or so) of the world's population.

http://www.noharmm.org/religiouspop.htm

There was no gravity. Gravity is a product of mass, there was no mass at the moment of the big bang - only energy. Sub-atomic particles did not come into existance until the universe was about 10*2^-20 seconds old and for a long time were destroyed almost instantly.

Now, if you want to really understand the BB you need to read up on P-Brane theory and 11 dimension geometry.
That's not why there wasn't gravity...

Well, if next time you dropped a hammer to the ground, it remained suspended in the air, then you'll just have disproven Newton's laws. Unless something else was acting as a sort of normal force to your hammer, preventing its fall.
Or so you believe. All I am saying is that just because that's happened every time I've dropped a hammer in the past, that doesn't guarantee its happening in the future. I still have to have faith in the universality of gravity if I want to tell someone that when they drop a hammer, it will fall to the ground.

The genetic code is different in every organism.
The genetic code is not different from organism to organism. You're thinking of the genome-the DNA sequence. That differs from organism to organism. The genetic code-the system of mRNA triplets that code for amino acids during transcription and translation-has been shown to be nearly universal. In fact, the universal genetic code is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favor of the theory of descent-with-modification from a common ancestor.

If you study math and/or physics you don't need to have faith in Stephen Hawking's word.
I'm not telling you to trust Hawking blindly, all I'm saying is that-much as in the hammer example-you have to believe that the laws of physics or math or any other discipline are indeed as universal as we think them to be. Without this assumption, none of the inferences we make about the universe are valid.

I disagree.
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not anti-science; I'm a student of biology, I've studied physics, I've studied chemistry, and I've studied the theory of evolution in-depth. I know what it is and what it claims, and I know what it is not and what it does not claim. I'm simply saying that, even given the preponderance of evidence in favor of evolution, I still have to believe-ie, put my faith in-that evidence in order to believe the theory it supports. Now, I realize that the truth is the truth regardless of what we may believe, but I'm just saying that if we make claims about the way the world works, we have put our faith in the claims that we make. Otherwise we wouldn't have made them.

-snip-
Science does not work on faith - faith is this strange thing religions demand because they don't have credible answers to the questions.

No, faith is what you have when you cannot see God.

The Bible is full of answers. But many people don't like those answers.

And faith is what I have every time I sit down in my chair. Because every once in a while, the chair fails, and I fall down. But I still sit anyway, because I have faith that it won't fall apart thistime. ;)

And I have faith that when I stand and look out the window up here on the 60th floor, that the window will not fly out of its mounting and I won't fall out. Because however improbable, it is possible. And I have faith that it won't be me who finds out that it wasn't mounted properly in the first place.

I also have faith that the fast food place where I just got my lunch did not have an employee spitting into my food, and that there won't be a bug or piece of a finger or rat excrement in the food either.-munch-so far, so good- :)

We all use faith every day. Some of us place our faith in God for the most important things. And some don't.

Too bad everyone gets so mad about everyone else's choices... :(

Go Kejott! :fluffle:

No, faith is what you have when you cannot see God.

The Bible is full of answers. But many people don't like those answers.

The bible is full of answers that have been proven wrong.

And faith is what I have every time I sit down in my chair. Because every once in a while, the chair fails, and I fall down. But I still sit anyway, because I have faith that it won't fall apart thistime. ;)

And I have faith that when I stand and look out the window up here on the 60th floor, that the window will not fly out of its mounting and I won't fall out. Because however improbable, it is possible. And I have faith that it won't be me who finds out that it wasn't mounted properly in the first place.

Sometimes, somethings fail.

Problem is that religion fails everytime.

We all use faith every day. Some of us place our faith in God for the most important things. And some don't.

Too bad everyone gets so mad about everyone else's choices... :(

We don't use faith every day, we work on the balance of probability. In 51 years of life I've never had a chair fail when I've sat on it - unless there was a glaring fault that I should have mended weeks or months before.

Why people would place faith in a non-existant being is beyond me.

Go Kejott! :fluffle:

Why thank you! :fluffle: