June 06, 2020, 11:17:27 AM
Forum Rules: Read This Before Posting


Topic: Defending Science..  (Read 35928 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Donaldson Tan

  • Editor, New Asia Republic
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3178
  • Mole Snacks: +261/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • New Asia Republic
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2006, 07:01:22 PM »
Silkworm, what stand do you take in defending the sciences?
"Say you're in a [chemical] plant and there's a snake on the floor. What are you going to do? Call a consultant? Get a meeting together to talk about which color is the snake? Employees should do one thing: walk over there and you step on the friggin� snake." - Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO of Glaxosmithkline, June 2006

Offline Dude

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 237
  • Mole Snacks: +42/-9
  • I'm a mole!
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2006, 08:24:01 PM »
I basically agree with the logic presented by Felixe.  Science is just a job.  It is used to predict events using simple models of nature.  It is neither contradictory or supportive of the "how" the universe was created.  I was always amazed at the arrogance and brashness of university professors telling impressionable 18-21 year old kids in the sciences their opinions about the non-existence of a god.  I am more or less non-religious, however, one should look closely at the shear odds of the conditions on planet Earth that are necessary to sustain life before dismissing "god".

Geodome-  In response to your question about right wing Christians in the US.  Yes.  They are here.  They are running (and wrecking) the country.  It would be nice to see a true separation of church and state one day.

Offline Will

  • Organic Dude
  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
  • Mole Snacks: +58/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2006, 09:12:06 PM »
I basically agree with the logic presented by Felixe. Science is just a job. It is used to predict events using simple models of nature. It is neither contradictory or supportive of the "how" the universe was created.

I would argue otherwise, but I'll leave that to someone else if they want to pick up on how science is suppotive of a theory in how the universe was created :P.

one should look closely at the shear odds of the conditions on planet Earth that are necessary to sustain life before dismissing "god".

Surely the fact that there are odds is proof that there need'nt be a god for life to exist? Someone should make up the odds for a god existing... ;)
My opinion is that people don't believe in god because of the odds of a god creating life are better than those of life creating itself through a series of 'lucky' chemical reactions (apparently), but because of their upbringing, the bible (in christianity) and other reasons. I would say religion isn't about odds- it would be like people of a certain religion saying that there is a 40% chance that there religion is completely wrong ;D (or something along those lines...)! I went to a catholic school for 7 years and they were hard on religious education so I believe I've heard their side of the story, but if anyone knows better please correct me :).

If  extraterrestrial life is found, do you think that would that change peoples' views on those odds (and "god") or not?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2006, 09:23:03 PM by will17 »

Offline wereworm73

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • Mole Snacks: +21/-4
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2006, 10:35:24 PM »
My opinion is that people don't believe in god because of the odds of a god creating life are better than those of life creating itself through a series of 'lucky' chemical reactions (apparently), but because of their upbringing, the bible (in christianity) and other reasons. I would say religion isn't about odds- it would be like people of a certain religion saying that there is a 40% chance that there religion is completely wrong ;D (or something along those lines...)! I went to a catholic school for 7 years and they were hard on religious education so I believe I've heard their side of the story, but if anyone knows better please correct me :).

If  extraterrestrial life is found, do you think that would that change peoples' views on those odds (and "god") or not?


I'd say hope is definitely one of them.  It's not easy to leave the hope of miracles or a pleasant afterlife behind, especially during hard times. 

As for the discovery of extraterrestrial life affecting religious views, I don't think it would have that much impact.  Religious leaders could just argue that their god(s) didn't need to mention aliens to lay down the law, that the scriptures only had what we needed to know. 

Personally, I think there are extraterrestrial lifeforms out there.  There's just so many solar systems out there to overcomer the high odds of life forming.

Offline Will

  • Organic Dude
  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 400
  • Mole Snacks: +58/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2006, 10:50:46 PM »
My opinion is that people don't believe in god because of the odds of a god creating life are better than those of life creating itself through a series of 'lucky' chemical reactions (apparently), but because of their upbringing, the bible (in christianity) and other reasons...

If  extraterrestrial life is found, do you think that would that change peoples' views on those odds (and "god") or not?


I'd say hope is definitely one of them.  It's not easy to leave the hope of miracles or a pleasant afterlife behind, especially during hard times.

Yeah, I agree with you on that one- I remember about 5/6 years ago making a pretty poster of about 20 reasons why poeple believe in god (and christianity) and I've forgotten nearly all of them :(.

As for the discovery of extraterrestrial life affecting religious views, I don't think it would have that much impact.  Religious leaders could just argue that their god(s) didn't need to mention aliens to lay down the law, that the scriptures only had what we needed to know. 

Personally, I think there are extraterrestrial lifeforms out there.  There's just so many solar systems out there to counter those odds of life forming.

Thats an interesting point of view- I can see religious leaders using that argument; they're very imaginative!
Although I would say that proof/discovery of extraterrestrial life would significantly damage most religions' credibility.

Online Borek

  • Mr. pH
  • Administrator
  • Deity Member
  • *
  • Posts: 25784
  • Mole Snacks: +1686/-400
  • Gender: Male
  • I am known to be occasionally wrong.
    • Chembuddy
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2006, 03:45:14 AM »
My opinion is that people don't believe in god because of the (...) but because of their upbringing, the bible (in christianity) and other reasons.

I have a gut feeling that most people prefer (for selfish reasons ;) ) to believe they were created and not evolved. Somehow they feel better this way.

At the same time I have a friend who believes very strong in God - but it doesn't stop him from supporting evolution. He once told me that using creationism to explain irreducible complexity is simply taking the easy way out instead of doing the hard work to understand the phenomena.

Thinkng hurts.
ChemBuddy chemical calculators - stoichiometry, pH, concentration, buffer preparation, titrations.info, pH-meter.info

Offline woelen

  • Chemist
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 277
  • Mole Snacks: +40/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • The art of wondering makes life worth living...
    • Science made alive
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2006, 06:23:12 AM »
Quote
If  extraterrestrial life is found, do you think that would that change peoples' views on those odds (and "god") or not?
I am a christian and I do not think it has much impact (at least not on my belief). The bible does not need to mention it. For us it is not important whether there is aextraterrestrial life or not, at least not from a religious point of view.

Personally I'm inclined to believe that there is extraterrestrial life. There are so many stars and planets. I think that somewhere out there, there will be life, maybe even intelligent life. On the other hand, I also believe that we will NEVER find and meet any such life forms, because they are so far away. Maybe we find some primitive life forms in our own solar system and that would be very interesting, but for me it would not be a problem for my belief. If God can create life on earth, then He also can create life on other planets/moons. I do not believe that earth is central in the universe, although it is central for mankind.
Want to wonder? See http://www.oelen.net/science

Offline silkworm

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16
  • Mole Snacks: +2/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Silly debating truth, dangerous not to tell it"
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #22 on: June 19, 2006, 02:53:06 AM »
Silkworm, what stand do you take in defending the sciences?

Hey geodome, sorry for the late reply.

Well, my overall stance is complex, but right now the biggest issue is the creationism/ID movement. I've been to a few meetings and looked at a lot of creationism/ID media and it appears as though these creation scientists either misrepresent textbook science when they talk about it or they outright lie about it so their silly, nonscientific arguments won't sound as silly to its target audience of nonscientists, who don't have a frame of reference on which to criticize the material in which they are being presented.

I'm all for disproving any scientific theory, that's what science is all about, but you must do so with science, not with no data and poor methodology up against a strawman, and I find it insulting that anyone would go and lie to well meaning people in order to use them as pawns, especially since there is absolutely no conflict between science and religion unless the interpreter chooses to create one by misapplying both.

I'm really short on time here, and I hope that was a decent enough explanation. I have explanations on my blog, and to show the type of people creation scientists are read my latest blog about the Return of Lucas.

Offline Baseball_Fan

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
  • Mole Snacks: +7/-30
  • I'm a mole!
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #23 on: June 19, 2006, 02:51:50 PM »
The difference between science and science fiction is often a thin line. Too many scientists enjoy science fiction as being true. Look at how many scientists believe in life on mars or little green men. One highschool physics teacher told students he believed in time travel. These are the same guys who won't accept the truth of God and try to force young kids to give up their religion.

God has been proven to exist, his son walked the earth. People saw his miracles. It has been believed for over 2000 years. Science often changes opinions and theories. What my highschool teachers taught 10 years ago might not be considered truth today, but back in highschool they taught science as fact. Heck, my science teachers believed it so much they issued grades based on students believeing what was taught. It is brainwashing (You get a 50 point test, and if you don't agree with a question + anwser, then you lose a point). It is like training a dog by giving him food everytime he does what you want.

The Bible is not a history of the world, with every detail. It is only the most important events and parables.

Offline Donaldson Tan

  • Editor, New Asia Republic
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3178
  • Mole Snacks: +261/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • New Asia Republic
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #24 on: June 19, 2006, 04:45:43 PM »
The difference between science and science fiction is often a thin line. Too many scientists enjoy science fiction as being true. Look at how many scientists believe in life on mars or little green men. One highschool physics teacher told students he believed in time travel. These are the same guys who won't accept the truth of God and try to force young kids to give up their religion.

To believe in something regardless if it is absolutely true is a human character. It gives us hope, comfort, and strength to perserve. Believing in time travel does not make time travel possible. Every scientist knows that deep in his heart. This is not brain-washing. This is just manifestation of the human spirit.

However, the difference between science and religion is regardless of your beliefs, science is true, unlike religion. Science is true absolutely. It is the systematic and objective description and analysis of day-to-day phenomena. In comparision, the extent of in truth of one's religions depends on the individual. Religious truth is perceptive and not absolute.

God has been proven to exist, his son walked the earth. People saw his miracles. It has been believed for over 2000 years. Science often changes opinions and theories. What my highschool teachers taught 10 years ago might not be considered truth today, but back in highschool they taught science as fact. Heck, my science teachers believed it so much they issued grades based on students believeing what was taught. It is brainwashing (You get a 50 point test, and if you don't agree with a question + anwser, then you lose a point). It is like training a dog by giving him food everytime he does what you want.

Isn't this the classic Chrstian cyclic arguement. First assume there is a God, then assume God sent his son to Earth, then pick an ancient person from historical records and say that person is the Son of God, so there must be a God. WOW. I am impressed by your arguement!

The Bible is not a history of the world, with every detail. It is only the most important events and parables.

At least someone agrees the biblical age of universe is not accurate. LOL.
"Say you're in a [chemical] plant and there's a snake on the floor. What are you going to do? Call a consultant? Get a meeting together to talk about which color is the snake? Employees should do one thing: walk over there and you step on the friggin� snake." - Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO of Glaxosmithkline, June 2006

Offline Baseball_Fan

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
  • Mole Snacks: +7/-30
  • I'm a mole!
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2006, 04:59:07 PM »
God has been proven to exist, his son walked the earth. People saw his miracles. It has been believed for over 2000 years. Science often changes opinions and theories. What my highschool teachers taught 10 years ago might not be considered truth today, but back in highschool they taught science as fact. Heck, my science teachers believed it so much they issued grades based on students believeing what was taught. It is brainwashing (You get a 50 point test, and if you don't agree with a question + anwser, then you lose a point). It is like training a dog by giving him food everytime he does what you want.

Isn't this the classic Chrstian cyclic arguement. First assume there is a God, then assume God sent his son to Earth, then pick an ancient person from historical records and say that person is the Son of God, so there must be a God. WOW. I am impressed by your arguement!

The universe didn't come from nowhere. The only one with the power to make the universe is God. There is too much beauty in nature for it to be random. When I look into the night sky, and see the stars, it is like a painting.

The proof of God is Jesus. He walked the earth. He is not just "some guy from history". Too many people witnessed his acts, his miracles. He cured people who were sick. He rose from the dead. And even today, there are miracles by people like Mother Teresa. There are miracles that science can not expalin.

Online Borek

  • Mr. pH
  • Administrator
  • Deity Member
  • *
  • Posts: 25784
  • Mole Snacks: +1686/-400
  • Gender: Male
  • I am known to be occasionally wrong.
    • Chembuddy
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2006, 06:09:29 PM »
The universe didn't come from nowhere. The only one with the power to make the universe is God.

I am interested in the real beginning - so assuming God created the Universe, my question gets shifted back in time - where did the God came from?
ChemBuddy chemical calculators - stoichiometry, pH, concentration, buffer preparation, titrations.info, pH-meter.info

Offline Donaldson Tan

  • Editor, New Asia Republic
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3178
  • Mole Snacks: +261/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • New Asia Republic
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2006, 06:12:16 PM »
The difference between science and science fiction is often a thin line.

the difference between science and religion is regardless of your beliefs, science is true

Science often changes opinions and theories. What my highschool teachers taught 10 years ago might not be considered truth today, but back in highschool they taught science as fact. Heck, my science teachers believed it so much they issued grades based on students believeing what was taught. It is brainwashing (You get a 50 point test, and if you don't agree with a question + anwser, then you lose a point). It is like training a dog by giving him food everytime he does what you want.

The objectivity of science allows you to modify it, change it. Over time, science refines itself through the method that it is established. This is not because of there is no absolute truth in science, but because science seeks the absolute truth inherently and continuously. Scientists continuously question and challenge established theories and principles with new data to refine the theories already put forth to produce a more accurate description of our universe. Religion does not do that. Religion assumes there is a God responsible for everything around us, and it stops there. What sort of logical route is that?
"Say you're in a [chemical] plant and there's a snake on the floor. What are you going to do? Call a consultant? Get a meeting together to talk about which color is the snake? Employees should do one thing: walk over there and you step on the friggin� snake." - Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO of Glaxosmithkline, June 2006

Offline Donaldson Tan

  • Editor, New Asia Republic
  • Retired Staff
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3178
  • Mole Snacks: +261/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • New Asia Republic
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2006, 06:14:24 PM »
I am interested in the real beginning - so assuming God created the Universe, my question gets shifted back in time - where did the God came from?

Baseball_fan: which come first - the chicken or the egg?
"Say you're in a [chemical] plant and there's a snake on the floor. What are you going to do? Call a consultant? Get a meeting together to talk about which color is the snake? Employees should do one thing: walk over there and you step on the friggin� snake." - Jean-Pierre Garnier, CEO of Glaxosmithkline, June 2006

Offline Baseball_Fan

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
  • Mole Snacks: +7/-30
  • I'm a mole!
Re: My blog about my experiences defending science
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2006, 06:14:48 PM »
The universe didn't come from nowhere. The only one with the power to make the universe is God.

I am interested in the real beginning - so assuming God created the Universe, my question gets shifted back in time - where did the God came from?

One day, he might tell us. Only he knows the answer to that question!

Sponsored Links