17 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThat's funny. I guess those scientists have absolutely no say in what kind of research they do.
Politicians that, typically, don’t know too much about science, fund scientists into do wasteful and expensive research on things that don’t really mater when they could have funded those same scientists into do useful research into, say, preventing crop failure and famine, or finding a cure for cancer etc.
17 Jan 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasWith no science, we would certainly still be grazing around.
With no science, we would certainly still be grazing around.
With no religion, many wars certainly wouldn't be faught.
So the scientific method doesn't define what is and is not science?
With no religion, many wars certainly wouldn't be faught.
A faith-based argument if I ever saw one.
17 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIndividual scientists have SOME say in what kind of research they do but it is limited:
That's funny. I guess those scientists have absolutely no say in what kind of research they do.
If, say, the government-run research offers 60 job vacancies in, say, cancer research, then no matter HOW many scientists want to do government-run cancer research, even if 1,000,000 of them want to do this, at the end of the day only 60 will be given this choice because there are only 60 such vacancies that can be filled.
Generally the more money a government puts into an area of research, the more money there is to employ more scientists to be involved in it thus the government and therefore the politicians are the ones that control how many scientists do research into what and NOT the scientists -would you deny this?
If, for example, the politicians decide to put NO money into research into space exploration, then virtually no scientists would be doing it no matter how much and how many want to.
17 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by fishin27….Firstly, science is not religion.
Firstly, science is not religion.
Define religion? Do you beleive in it?
Your more religious than any theist zelot I've ever come across. Sounds religious, has more faith than I can muster....mmm must be religious.
Don't get me wrong be proud of your religious beliefs but be prepared to give an defence of you blind faith and beliefs. All I've hear alking around with blinkers on, but hay that's just my opinion.
Peace love and poeple
Define religion?
.…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
….Do you believe in it?
…
You mean do I think scientific method is a rational way of determining truth? -if so, the answer is “yes“.
That does not make it a “religion”.
For example, I believe that 4+4=8 -that is not a “religion” because I can verify it by counting.
Believing any proposition is true because of reason means it is not faith by definition of what most of us mean by the word “faith” in the religious context.
17 Jan 09
Originally posted by fishin27So technology from science can be used for harmful as well as beneficial purposes
Fabian,
Without science there would be no bomb of any kind.
Grow a brain before playing the blame game.
-this doesn’t say anything about whether science itself nor scientific method is “good” or “bad”.
Religion can be used to promote harmful as well as beneficial acts -religion can be used to promote warfare -so what does this say about how “good” or “bad” religion is?
However, scientific method is the most rational way known of determining truth while religion generally relies on faith and has no standard way of rationally determining the truth.
17 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynka….With no science, we would certainly still be grazing around.
[b]With no science, we would certainly still be grazing around.
So the scientific method doesn't define what is and is not science?
With no religion, many wars certainly wouldn't be faught.
A faith-based argument if I ever saw one.[/b]
So the scientific method doesn't define what is and is not science?
.…
Firstly, how does it logically follow from:
“With no science, we would certainly still be grazing around”
That:
“scientific method doesn't define what is and is not science”
?
Secondly, scientific method doesn't need to define “what is science“; we can formally define something however we like and “scientific method” is not required to define anything.
As long as a definition expresses what we mutually agree what that word/term means to us then that is all that is required.
….With no religion, many wars certainly wouldn't be fought.
A faith-based argument if I ever saw one.…
The fact that religion has often been used to promote warfare is based on historical EVIDENCE and thus is NOT based on faith.
17 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by fishin27The decision to use bombs against humans comes from politicians, not scientists.
Fabian,
Without science there would be no bomb of any kind.
Grow a brain before playing the blame game.
Personal attacks, only because you don't agree what I write, shows your personality.
17 Jan 09
Originally posted by fishin27But can't feed our fellow man
I've never seen so many religious scientists or science followers (worshipers) on one site before all trying to prove the unprovable.
How ever I also find it amazing how we can spend billions researching how to kill each other and billions going into space and still more billions getting people elected. But can't feed our fellow man, can't come up with a ...[text shortened]... but it hits the button regarding mans in humanity to man.
Peace Love and Mung Beans
Science is and has been used to feed our fellow man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
The Haber process (a scientific discovery) is responsible for feeding 1/3 of the Human population.
can't stop all sorts of nasty stuff.
Science has led to great progress against cancer. It's allowed us to wipe smallpox out completely, we've almost wiped polio out completely too.
No amount of faith healing has come close to curing a teenager's face from a single pimple.
You'd have to have your head in the sand to not realize how many lives scientific discoveries have saved over the past 100 years alone.
27 Jan 09
Fabian You once again miss my point as it appears most of you have. Question Has science ever been wrong? Answer Yes. and yet you all go blindly believing and hanging onto the current train of thought even when some aspects of it are questioned by other scientific beliefs and theories. ie The Second Law of Thermodynamics (could be the thrid) totally disagree with the evolutionary process taken over long periods of time. So what needs to change the scientific law or the scientific theory?
Like wise may people read the same bible/siritual text and interprite it diffrently. Who is right. All the people of faith have are the original text to go on (What ever faith they may be of) but in the end it would be clear who is twisting it to suit there purpose. Where by revieling the fraud.The problem lies in people not wanting to do the study to find the truth.
My point is people of science seem to show more faith than those of religion as nothing is questioned until someone is convicted to the point of being able to stand up for the new discovery and suffer greatly for stepping away from the status quoe.
Your life is a voyage of discovery....I would think it wise to look at all the ships and there destination before embarking on a voyage were you might have to turn back should you discover the boat has holes.
Peace and Love to you and yours
27 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by fishin27…Question Has science ever been wrong? Answer Yes....…
[pgn]However, scientific method is the most rational way known of determining truth while religion generally relies on faith and has no standard way of rationally determining the truth.[/pgn]
Fabian You once again miss my point as it appears most of you have. Question Has science ever been wrong? Answer Yes. and yet you all go blindly believing and hangi ...[text shortened]... ght have to turn back should you discover the boat has holes.
Peace and Love to you and yours
Has science ever been right? Answer Yes.
Has any scientific hypothesis ever been permanently PROVEN right -Answer Yes.
For those scientific hypothesis that have been PROVEN right, it is not ‘faith’ to believe they are right but reason.
….The Second Law of Thermodynamics (could be the third) totally disagree with the evolutionary process taken over long periods of time.….
That is simply not true. Can you elaborate on that?
None of the laws of Thermodynamics have anything to do with evolution.
28 Jan 09
1 edit
Andrew, It has everything to do with it. I looked it up on wikapedia (It seems to be a favoured site for info here. Lacking in many areas but a reasonable base to start from)and followed several links that has both science and religious proponants following and discussing the inclution of thermodynamics in evolution (both using closed and open systems and other variations) this would conclude that both sides beleive and argue for its need in evolutionary theory.
I might point out the arguments from both sides we coloured with there own perceptions and presupersitions that both confirmed there arguments and rebutted the other.
However the fundermental point of deteriortion of elements was not argued well by those of the scientific bent. In fact their examples used to prove their point in fact confirmed the alternative in my view.
I find it highly laughable when some know it all tries to say "well you obviously don't understand" as one of the science debators was doing with a religoius proponant that turned out to have phds and more letters after his name than an alphabete.....I might add that I didn't agree with everything he had to say eather.
Andrew I wish you a safe voyage but keep a look out for leaks.
Love and harmony
28 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSo what you are saying is that you only beleive the scientific hypothesis that have been proven right. If I've quoted you correctly, I have no problem with your belief system as it is based on sound reason.
[b]…Question Has science ever been wrong? Answer Yes....…
Has science ever been right? Answer Yes.
Has any scientific hypothesis ever been permanently PROVEN right -Answer Yes.
For those scientific hypothesis that have been PROVEN right, it is not ‘faith’ to believe they are right but reason.
However when you trudge out statements agreeing with scientific findings regarding the beginning of the universe and the history of the planet that are based on anything but presupersition and seudo science and guess work that is left wanting....I call that faith.
Accept I have an opinion or don't. Life will go on till death and then we'll know.
Peace to you and yours
28 Jan 09
Originally posted by fishin27you make some excellent points my friend! for to be sure, its better to have a mind opened by wonder than one limited by beliefs in the guise of knowledge!😀
So what you are saying is that you only beleive the scientific hypothesis that have been proven right. If I've quoted you correctly, I have no problem with your belief system as it is based on sound reason.
However when you trudge out statements agreeing with scientific findings regarding the beginning of the universe and the history of the planet that a ...[text shortened]... n opinion or don't. Life will go on till death and then we'll know.
Peace to you and yours
28 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by fishin27…Andrew, It has everything to do with it.. ...…
Andrew, It has everything to do with it. I looked it up on wikapedia (It seems to be a favoured site for info here. Lacking in many areas but a reasonable base to start from)and followed several links that has both science and religious proponants following and discussing the inclution of thermodynamics in evolution (both using closed and open systems and o ather.
Andrew I wish you a safe voyage but keep a look out for leaks.
Love and harmony
-nope:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is NOT a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
(my emphasis)
And because in terms of energy life is NOT a closed system, the second law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to life and therefore evolution. All credible scientific links on this subject basically say the same thing.
The idea that the laws of thermodynamics contradict evolution has been simply long dismissed by the scientific community as total and utter nonsense.
28 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by fishin27…However when you trudge out statements agreeing with scientific findings regarding the beginning of the universe and the history of the planet that are based on anything but presupersition and seudo science and guess work that is left wanting....I call that faith.
So what you are saying is that you only beleive the scientific hypothesis that have been proven right. If I've quoted you correctly, I have no problem with your belief system as it is based on sound reason.
However when you trudge out statements agreeing with scientific findings regarding the beginning of the universe and the history of the planet that a ...[text shortened]... n opinion or don't. Life will go on till death and then we'll know.
Peace to you and yours
...…
Then we are in agreement: all your creationists beliefs are just faith while my belief (and those that are both aware of the scientific facts and accept fact as fact) in the proven fact of evolution and the proven geological fact that the Earth is billions of years old etc and the belief in all other scientifically proven facts as examples of belief based on sound reason (consisting of either logic or evidence or both but NOT faith).