1. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    15 Mar '05 09:59
    The need for looking at the practice of science becomes clear when we see how profound its influence is on society. As an example I will take the theory of evolution. This "theory" has had enormous influence on world history. Karl Marx said that Charles Darwin had made "scientific socialism" possible. The communist experiment of Eastern Europe had its foundation in the theory of evolution, and in Marx's own estimation would have been impossible without it.

    Evolution has had its great influence on legal systems the world over. Considering man to be simply an accidentally enhanced wild animal leads to a particular view of his responisbilities in behaving like a human rather than a beast. A view completely different to that held when man was believed to be created by God. Violent crime and its punishmnet have come to be widely judged on the understanding that man cannot be blamed for behaviour conditioned by bestiality in previous evolutionary states of existance.

    The influence of evolution on morality has been extreme. If man is simply the result of random chance processes, then his laws and moral standards are purely conventional. Society can choose its standards of good and bad, right or wrong to suit its circumstances. Absolute standards do not exist, and therefore there is no real reason why each person should not set his own standards. As a direct result of the acceptance of evolution every individual has the right for himself to decide on questions such as homosexuality, drug use, marital faithfulness, euthenasia and abortion.

    And yet there are has never been one experiment performed, which has upheld the theory of evolution, either the evolution fo life from non-life, or the evolution of one "kind" into another. Every mathematical analysis of the probability of evolution has shown it to be untenable. Vast numbers of observations cantradict the theory. Great scientists have variously described the theory as "nonsense of higher order", "a fairy tale for grown-ups", " the gratest deceipt in the history of science", and "a scientific religion".

    The widespread acceptanceof this totally unjustified theory, and its enormous influence of society, and even the course of world history illustrates the power which scientists wield.
  2. Standard memberMaustrauser
    Lord Chook
    Stringybark
    Joined
    16 Nov '03
    Moves
    88863
    15 Mar '05 10:42
    Your posts are becoming more illiterate, gramatically suspect and puerile by the day... You do your god no favours.

    Perhaps you still wish to respond to this post...

    It was the scientific method that you so deride and despise that has given you:

    - Safe aeroplane travel
    - The destruction of Smallpox
    - Heart surgery
    - The computer that you are typing your calumny upon
    - SCUBA diving.
    - The Hubble telescope
    - X-rays
    - Plastic
    - Laminated widscreens
    - The Golden Gate Bridge
    - Hydro-electricity
    - Crystalography
    - Bathyscaphes
    - Theory of relativity
    - IVF
    - Viagra
    - Mohs' scale
    - Phonology and phonetics
    - Genetic engineering
    - The Sydney Opera House
    - Discovery of DNA
    - The ink used in printing the Bible
    - Biology
    - Anatomy
    - Astronomy
    - Electric-Arc Process of steel making
    - Infernal (or is that internal) combustion engine that gets you to church
    - Paraffin that is burnt in the candles in your church
    - Silicon chips
    - Mobile phones
    - Compact disks
    - Open Heart Surgery
    - Space travel
    - Antibiotics

    So djbecker - dispose of the scientific method at your peril and return to the pre-Enlightenment. You would probably be more comfortable there. You could perhaps join the Inquisition. They didn't like new ideas either.

    Henry
  3. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78523
    15 Mar '05 10:48
    There is a problem with germs that have developed resistance to things like penecillin, without a theory of evolution we would have no way of understanding this and therefore no way of doing anything about it. I'm an agnostic but I really don't see what your problem with evolution is, your God could perfectly easily have created a universe with evolution built into it as part of the plan.
  4. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    15 Mar '05 10:48
    Originally posted by Maustrauser
    Your posts are becoming more illiterate, gramatically suspect and puerile by the day... You do your god no favours.

    Perhaps you still wish to respond to this post...

    It was the scientific method that you so deride and despise that has given you:

    - Safe aeroplane travel
    - The destruction of Smallpox
    - Heart surgery
    - The computer that you ...[text shortened]... e there. You could perhaps join the Inquisition. They didn't like new ideas either.

    Henry
    rec'd just for using the word 'calumny' 🙂
  5. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    15 Mar '05 10:542 edits
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    There is a problem with germs that have developed resistance to things like penecillin, without a theory of evolution we would have no way of understanding this and therefore no way of doing anything about it. I'm an agnostic but I re ...[text shortened]... eated a universe with evolution built into it as part of the plan.
    I believe the problem people like dj2becker have with evolution is that if god did build it into his plan, then it threatens the idea that man was created by god and didn't evolve from the same common ancestor as other primates. As well as the idea that the earth was created 6000 years ago instead of billions etc. etc. etc. This would apparently bring the bible down around itself in tatters and consequently make a mockery of any belief in the christian god.
  6. Standard memberRedmike
    Godless Commie
    Glasgow
    Joined
    06 Jan '04
    Moves
    171019
    15 Mar '05 11:05
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    The communist experiment of Eastern Europe had its foundation in the theory of evolution, and in Marx's own estimation would have been impossible without it.
    Absolute nonsense!
    When did this 'communist experiment' occur? Was Marx alive or dead at this time? I know Karl Marx was a visionary, but that's really pushing it.
    And communist theories are based on evolution - utter tosh!
    Entertaining tosh, but tosh all the same.
  7. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    15 Mar '05 11:50
    Originally posted by Maustrauser
    Your posts are becoming more illiterate, gramatically suspect and puerile by the day... You do your god no favours.

    Perhaps you still wish to respond to this post...

    It was the scientific method that you so deride and despise that has given you:

    - Safe aeroplane travel
    - The destruction of Smallpox
    - Heart surgery
    - The computer that you ...[text shortened]... e there. You could perhaps join the Inquisition. They didn't like new ideas either.

    Henry
    My dear friend maybe it will surprise you that Christianity created Science. The irrefutable fact is that Christianity gave birth to modern science. The scientific revolution began in the Protestant Reformation and the Bible played a vital part in the development of scientific discovery. Every major branch of science was developed by a Bible - believing Christian. The Bible essentially created science and the scientific method.

    Evolution is in fact everything but science. Is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” guided by natural laws? What natural law creates order from disorder? What natural law creates life from death? There are no such natural laws. Evolution fails this test. There is nothing scientific about it.

  8. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    15 Mar '05 12:04
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    My dear friend maybe it will surprise you that Christianity created Science. The irrefutable fact is that Christianity gave birth to modern science. The scientific revolution began in the Protestant Reformation and the Bible played a vital part in the development of scientific discovery. Every major branch of science was developed by a Bible - believing Ch ...[text shortened]... are no such natural laws. Evolution fails this test. There is nothing scientific about it.

    If I did not suspect that you had cut and pasted this last collection of wrods, I would be more explanatory in my discussion of your points. Alas, I fear instead I must suffice with:

    What nonsense! The very origins of science lay with the Ancient Greeks, philosophers, mathematicians and chemists that were putting the ground rules down hundreds of years before Christianity.
  9. Standard memberMaustrauser
    Lord Chook
    Stringybark
    Joined
    16 Nov '03
    Moves
    88863
    15 Mar '05 12:08
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    My dear friend maybe it will surprise you that Christianity created Science. The irrefutable fact is that Christianity gave birth to modern science. The scientific revolution began in the Protestant Reformation and the Bible played a vital part in the development of scientific discovery. Every major branch of science was developed by a Bible - believing Ch ...[text shortened]... are no such natural laws. Evolution fails this test. There is nothing scientific about it.

    Good to see you are still ripping off other people's ideas. Do you not have a single non-creationist idea in your "god-given' brain?

    See your argument at: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i6f.htm

    And no I am not in the least bit surprised that scientists were Christian during the renaissance [not the reformation my dear lad]. All Europeans then were Christian! Duh.🙄

    And guess what - Darwin too was a Christian! Whoopee. And could you please tell me where in the Bible the scientific method is laid down? Chapter and verse please.

  10. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    15 Mar '05 12:38
    Originally posted by Starrman
    If I did not suspect that you had cut and pasted this last collection of wrods, I would be more explanatory in my discussion of your points. Alas, I fear instead I must suffice with:

    What nonsense! The very origins of science lay with the Ancient Greeks, philosophers, mathematicians and chemists that were putting the ground rules down hundreds of years before Christianity.
    What nonsense! The very origins of science lay with the Ancient Greeks, philosophers, mathematicians and chemists that were putting the ground rules down hundreds of years before Christianity.

    What progess did they make?
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78523
    15 Mar '05 12:43
    Euclidean geometry, Archimedes principle ...
  12. Standard memberRedmike
    Godless Commie
    Glasgow
    Joined
    06 Jan '04
    Moves
    171019
    15 Mar '05 12:44
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    [b]What nonsense! The very origins of science lay with the Ancient Greeks, philosophers, mathematicians and chemists that were putting the ground rules down hundreds of years before Christianity.

    What progess did they make?[/b]
    A lot more progress than christianity made, especially in its 1st 1600 years.
  13. Standard memberMaustrauser
    Lord Chook
    Stringybark
    Joined
    16 Nov '03
    Moves
    88863
    15 Mar '05 12:49
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    [b]What nonsense! The very origins of science lay with the Ancient Greeks, philosophers, mathematicians and chemists that were putting the ground rules down hundreds of years before Christianity.

    What progess did they make?[/b]
    Considerably more than than the Inquisition.

    "Ooh Mr Galileo, you have discovered that the earth isn't the centre of the universe. You sinner! Off with his head."

  14. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11826
    15 Mar '05 12:52
    Originally posted by Maustrauser
    Good to see you are still ripping off other people's ideas. Do you not have a single non-creationist idea in your "god-given' brain?

    See your argument at: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i6f.htm

    And no I am not in the least bit surprised that scientists were Christian during the renaissance [not the reformation my dear lad]. All Europeans then were Christian! Duh.🙄

    And guess what - Darwin too was a Christian! Whoopee.
    And guess what - Darwin too was a Christian! Whoopee. And could you please tell me where in the Bible the scientific method is laid down? Chapter and verse please.

    And guess what? He was a Christian before he went off his rocker. He delved into spiritism and all that junk. These were the words he spoke before his book was published: "You will be greatly disappointed (by the forth coming book); it will be grieviously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal is it in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas." 🙄
  15. Standard memberRedmike
    Godless Commie
    Glasgow
    Joined
    06 Jan '04
    Moves
    171019
    15 Mar '05 13:021 edit
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    [b]And guess what - Darwin too was a Christian! Whoopee. And could you please tell me where in the Bible the scientific method is laid down? Chapter and verse please.

    And guess what? He was a Christian before he went off his roc ...[text shortened]... an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas." 🙄[/b]
    The distinction between christianity and spiritualism, astrology and the like was much more blurred during the scientific revolution than it is today.
    Most scientists and philosophers had an interest in spiritualism and astrology in these times, unlike today when they are (correctly) dismissed as nonsense. Newton, for example, was a big advocate of astrology.
    So, Darwin didn't 'go of his rocker' and get into spiritualism. It was perfectly accepteable, in his time, to be a christian and into things like spiritualism and the like. They were all at it.
Back to Top