Originally posted by RJHinds We need a language we can all understand to discuss science and religion.
Science and religion don't speak the same language and never will. Religion has no place in the scientific world, nor has science any place in belief systems.
Originally posted by Kewpie Science and religion don't speak the same language and never will. Religion has no place in the scientific world, nor has science any place in belief systems.
That does not keep people from claiming science supports there belief in
evolution does it?
If definitions are tools of the trade of Science are they part of Science or not ? That is a genuine question.
I don't care at the moment whether definitions can be used to deceive or whether definitions can be mistaken. I simply would like to hear some thoughts on are the tools of Science also part of Science.
How come the "dingus" calling poster cannot clarify and supplement the name calling with some insight ?
I know some have tried to give definitive reply. I'd like to hear from others.
Originally posted by jaywill If definitions are tools of the trade of Science are they part of Science or not ? That is a genuine question.
I don't care at the moment whether definitions can be used to deceive or whether definitions can be mistaken. I simply would like to hear some thoughts on are the tools of Science also part of Science.
How come the "dingus" calling poster c ...[text shortened]... nsight ?
I know some have tried to give definitive reply. I'd like to hear from others.
I guess it depends on your definition of "parts of science".
Originally posted by KazetNagorra I guess it depends on your definition of "parts of science".
I think that helps. I think I am thinking of the activity of carrying out the discipline of science or using a scientific method of research. Let's start there as a definition of science.
Now as to its "parts" ?
One poster implied that it is quite obvious that a "pencil" or "test tube" as a tool used by a scientist are not themselves science.
But what about definitions being used ?
Do you think it is a cut and dry case or is it suspect to different philosophies of what knowledge is or what science is, for example ?
If there is a philosophy forum here I think I will go and find out which Philosophy would postulate that definitions are a part of science and which would argue that definitions are not part of science.
The reading I am doing on the side opens up a pretty wide spectrum of competing philosophies of science.
Originally posted by RJHinds Since evolution is science fiction, should it be banned from discussion in the
science forum?
In your dreams is evolution science fiction. In your desperate dreams of defeating evolution and forcing creationism dogma to be the guiding light of the people. Good luck with that one btw.
You may have noticed creationist attempts at forcing the issue through the courts have lost every battle and rightly so, to try to force creationism to be taught along side evolution in science class almost as if creationism was an actual science which of course it is not, not even close. Only the worthless words of ancient dogma which the world can do without.
Originally posted by sonhouse In your dreams is evolution science fiction. In your desperate dreams of defeating evolution and forcing creationism dogma to be the guiding light of the people. Good luck with that one btw.
You may have noticed creationist attempts at forcing the issue through the courts have lost every battle and rightly so, to try to force creationism to be taught al ...[text shortened]... s not, not even close. Only the worthless words of ancient dogma which the world can do without.
This is due mainly to the prejudices against religion and not due to the true
facts.
Originally posted by RJHinds This is due mainly to the prejudices against religion and not due to the true
facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
No, this is not prejudice, this is a case of creationists with an agenda to destroy several science disciplines. The agenda of science in general is to learn about our world. The agenda of creationists is to keep science from learning about the real world and instead, to try to force religion down the throats of the young in their desperate fight to bring back the religious repression of the middle ages. That is their ultimate goal.
To make the US a christian version of Iran. Nothing less than that will ever satisfy the religious ultra right wing nut bags.
It is, however, very easy to see through their machinations as having been already proven in all the ways ID'ers and their ilk have tried to sneak their agenda through the courts, quite unsuccessfully.
Originally posted by sonhouse No, this is not prejudice, this is a case of creationists with an agenda to destroy several science disciplines. The agenda of science in general is to learn about our world. The agenda of creationists is to keep science from learning about the real world and instead, to try to force religion down the throats of the young in their desperate fight to bring b ...[text shortened]... ID'ers and their ilk have tried to sneak their agenda through the courts, quite unsuccessfully.
Am I one of those pigeons that keeps knocking over your chess pieces? 😏
03 Mar '12 11:361 edit
Definitions are not knowledge
Back to Top