Here is the post in question:
It is an idea someone came up with, if it is true or not is the question.
Calling it science doesn't mean it occured the way it is presented.
Kelly
I hope I can help shed some light on why you guys seem to be butting heads.
Kelly, your first word, "IT" is referring to science. You call "it" (science) "an idea someone came up with". Now, this is not the definition of the word science, or even close. While I grant you that in one way or another just about everything could fall under the category of "an idea someone came up with" I think we can both agree, because of it's scope, the label is largely meaningless. i.e. everything is an "idea someone came up with", it serves no purpose, it is like saying "all oxygen breathing humans".
I can only assume the message you wanted to convey is something to the effect of "science could be wrong about any number of things or could be right, who are we to know?” If that is the point you were trying to make then I certainly get it and I can understand why you are making it. It seems very much in line with your strategy thorough out this entire thread, which is to conflate science and religious faith until there is almost no difference between the two, at least in general terms. It is an effective argument so long as you get to define the terms.
The problem? Well, the fact is, science and religious faith really are not all that similar and speaking as a Christian we really don't want them to be. Religious faith is personal and is largely concerned with feelings, specifically the affairs of the heart and soul. Let's face it, an invisible deity who impregnates a human woman only to hang the product of that pregnancy from a cross so we can all experience everlasting life with him is decidedly NOT brain food. Every time we Christians attempt to give a reasoned and logical explanation for our faith we look foolish and rightly so, faith is not about reason and logic. I won't even get into the Christians that actually try to produce evidence for how logical their faith is, it is embarrassing. I guess that is my main point about faith the ONLY time we need be embarrassed about it is when we try to tell somebody it makes perfect sense...it just doesn't.
Science, on the other hand, is almost completely the opposite. For one thing it is not personal; a scientific theory that is not peer reviewed is not even a scientific theory. It has very little to do with matters of the heart and soul (unless someone is in need of a heart transplant) and faith plays no roll in it whatever. In fact, faith can not exist in the world of science, it would be impossible. Have you ever been to a bible study with more than five people? You will remember that everyone at that bible study has their own variation on their faith, we Christians just don't have a consensus opinion on a whole bunch of things regarding Christianity and that is perfectly ok, we don't need one because, as I said, faith is personal. Now, science, on the other hand and the TOE specifically does have a consensus opinion and it is held by literally tens of thousands of scientists all over the world. What about the Kent Hovinds of the world, you might ask; or even secular scientists who have a different take on the TOE? They are the vast vast minority; consider them like the Christians who think they can predict the second coming, just not worth listening to.
So, I ask you, if you really want to believe that the TOE is motivated by 'faith' how can you explain the agreement of all these thousands of scientists? Christianity has been at this for a few thousand years and we still can't get our ducks in a row, what do these arrogant scientists have that we don't? I will answer my rhetorical question...
They have evidence, they have peer review and they do not have the luxury of explaining away problems with magic. They are playing with real toys here Kelly, things that stimulate the physical senses, things that can be explained. We are playing with ideas and hopes, dreams and emotions, the things that tickle our hearts and stimulate our souls. We have faith, they have evidence and as far as I'm concerned we both (scientists and Christians) share a great deal of truth and a desire for even more understanding. I think this is what we should be focusing on rather than bickering about how their square pegs do not fit into our round holes. Many things in this world were never meant to fit together yet work very well side by side.
Sorry so long...
TheSkipper
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou are now saying, "Oh forget it...” you either can or cannot
Oh forget it - you can't even identify your own position let alone anyone elses. Tell me Kelly, why do you come here? Is it to argue some point, or just to be as deliberately obfuscatory as possible?
produce the quote which is it? Produce the quote and I'll say
I'm sorry, my bad, I error you are right and I am wrong. I'll
only ask this one more time, will you produce the quote? After
this I’ll just write this discussion off as a waist of my time.
Kelly
Originally posted by TheSkipperNo, 'it' did not refer to "science" it refered to "an idea" and my point
Here is the post in question:
It is an idea someone came up with, if it is true or not is the question.
Calling it science doesn't mean it occured the way it is presented.
Kelly
I hope I can help shed some light on why you guys seem to be butting heads.
Kelly, your first word, "IT" is referring to science. You call "it" (science) "an idea her yet work very well side by side.
Sorry so long...
TheSkipper
wasn't that the idea wasn't science, but that calling it science does
not mean it is true or real.
Kelly
Originally posted by TheSkipperThe rest of your post I'll look at a little later.
Here is the post in question:
It is an idea someone came up with, if it is true or not is the question.
Calling it science doesn't mean it occured the way it is presented.
Kelly
I hope I can help shed some light on why you guys seem to be butting heads.
Kelly, your first word, "IT" is referring to science. You call "it" (science) "an idea ...[text shortened]... her yet work very well side by side.
Sorry so long...
TheSkipper
Kelly
Originally posted by TheSkipperExcellent post. Unfortunately Kelly won't even try to understand it.
Here is the post in question:
It is an idea someone came up with, if it is true or not is the question.
Calling it science doesn't mean it occured the way it is presented.
Kelly
I hope I can help shed some light on why you guys seem to be butting heads.
Kelly, your first word, "IT" is referring to science. You call "it" (science) "an idea ...[text shortened]... her yet work very well side by side.
Sorry so long...
TheSkipper
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course, everything in science is an idea that someone came up with. An idea that has been used thousands of times to successfully explain the natural world. It's phenomenally good at it. Is the Theory of Evolution a scientific theory? Yes. It is. Why? Well, because it relies on physical evidence for it's existance, and could be proven to be false (if it were, indeed, false).
You are now saying, "Oh forget it...” you either can or cannot
produce the quote which is it? Produce the quote and I'll say
I'm sorry, my bad, I error you are right and I am wrong. I'll
only ask this one more time, will you produce the quote? After
this I’ll just write this discussion off as a waist of my time.
Kelly
You're thinly veiled attempt to call it non-science, or even try and bring that into question is simple spin-doctoring tactics. Everyone here can see that, except apparently you.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm sorry, did you reveal the quote, and I missed it, or was this
Of course, everything in science is an idea that someone came up with. An idea that has been used thousands of times to successfully explain the natural world. It's phenomenally good at it. Is the Theory of Evolution a scientific theory? Yes. It is. Why? Well, because it relies on physical evidence for it's existance, and could be proven to be fa uestion is simple spin-doctoring tactics. Everyone here can see that, except apparently you.
another post for you to rant? If it so easy to see, show it to me.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't need to - TheSkipper already did it, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not. You know Kelly, this is actually really productive - everyone is getting to really see what your arguments are made up of.
I'm sorry, did you reveal the quote, and I missed it, or was this
another post for you to rant? If it so easy to see, show it to me.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzEveryone but you took a stab at it, and I'm still wondering if they
I don't need to - TheSkipper already did it, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not. You know Kelly, this is actually really productive - everyone is getting to really see what your arguments are made up of.
even got the right post you were thinking of, that hasn't been made
clear by you yet. Since you don't have enough nerve to clarify what
post it was you were referring too, I guess others have to attempt
to think for you and figure it out. You don't like something so you
give a pop quiz and let others try and sort out your meaning. I
suggest we just part here, you can claim I'm at fault and you don't
even have to acknowledge why you made the claims.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHere's classic creationist/ID process in action:
Everyone but you took a stab at it, and I'm still wondering if they
even got the right post you were thinking of, that hasn't been made
clear by you yet. Since you don't have enough nerve to clarify what
post it was you were referring too, I guess others have to attempt
to think for you and figure it out. You don't like something so you
give a pop quiz ...[text shortened]... claim I'm at fault and you don't
even have to acknowledge why you made the claims.
Kelly
Don't like what your opponent's saying?
Can't come up with a useful argument to support your position?
Don't worry.
Crap on about something else until everyone gives up and goes home.
Nice one Kelly.
Originally posted by amannionYea, when I get accused of saying something I didn't say, after awhile
Here's classic creationist/ID process in action:
Don't like what your opponent's saying?
Can't come up with a useful argument to support your position?
Don't worry.
Crap on about something else until everyone gives up and goes home.
Nice one Kelly.
I find defending myself when he refuses to back up his statement
a waist of my time.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf this were about an argument maybe, but this exchange has been
I don't need to - TheSkipper already did it, whether you chose to acknowledge it or not. You know Kelly, this is actually really productive - everyone is getting to really see what your arguments are made up of.
about you claiming I said something, not a point for or against
ID or evolution or anything else. I understand you may have a
easier time bullying students with pop quizzes when they say things
you dislike, here I just laughed at you. You made a claim and have
not had the balls to even ID the post I supposedly made the claims
you accussed me of making. Instead you allowed others to take up
your battles and fight them for you and now your taking pop shots
at me when others address me. Get real Scott, produce the post
I'll say I screwed up, if I didn't actually say the things you accussed
me of be a man and say so. You have turned this into something
way beyond what it should have been, I actually thought you were
accussing me of something someone else said, now I just think
you had a brain fart and don't want to admit it.
Kelly