sciencism

i believe hitler once said... the bigger the lie the easier to believe


All of the major religions say that "god" is inside you. a big bearded invisible guy is inside me? yup. thats what i said. i'll explain:

Christianity: " The kingdom of heaven is within (or among) you" -that jew Jesus
Islam: "those who know themselves know their lord" - mohammad
Judiasm:"He is in all, and all is in him" - Kabbalah
Confucianism:"Those who know their own nature, know heaven" - mencius
Taoism:"in the depths of the soul, one sees the Divine, the One" – Chinese book of changes
Hinduism: "Atman [individual consciousness] and Brahman [universal consiousness] are one" – the Vedas
Buddhism: " Look within, you are the Buddha" - Gautama Buddha


ok so its not a big bearded guy. its like a concept. you are god. you are the buddha. oh word? thats what everybody's saying? then why am i worshipping the big bearded guy in the sky and britney spears? why aren't i worshipping myself? you mean i'm the creator of tthe universe? you mean i create my own reality? you mean i'm all powerful?

of course not ya idiot. haven't you ever taken a science class? we evolved here silly. on accident, by chance. isn't that crazy? and we've proved it we got the fossils and everything. ok. so the science guys have a belief system

the basic concepts science holds about the human phenomenon is as follows:
1.man is the by-product of mere chance
2.we live in a universe alien to us and ignorant of our destiny
3.we have come from nothingness and will return to nothingness after death

so lets just call this belief system aka religion sciencism- its based on that big bang and evolution stuff we all learned about in school while somehow? asleep. sciencism believes the above 3 things while all the other major religions claim that sciencism is full of crap. i mean evolution is just a theory right? and no one was really around during the big bang, so i guess we really haven't proven anything 100%. but we're like 78% sure that we know the facts of the universe and 22% sure those other belief systems are crazy. so if we were to add Sciencism to the above quotes it would go like this:

Christianity: " The kingdom of heaven is within (or among) you"
Islam: "those who know themselves know their lord"
Judiasm:"He is in all, and all is in him"
Confucianism:"Those who know their own nature, know heaven"
Taoism:"in the depths of the soul, one sees the Divine, the One"
Hinduism: "Atman [individual consciousness] and Brahman [universal consiousness] are one"
Buddhism: " Look within, you are the Buddha"
Scientism: "There is no Buddha" we smoked it all

sounds grim. have you ever run out of buddha? its the worst feeling. anyway. there is no buddha! no god! or no jah or no allah or no jewgod, etc! when you die your dead - lights out i'm sorry but your not seeing your dead granpappie your gonna just lose consciousness forever. i swear i'vd died before i know.

now if you've any taken psychology class you would have learned and forgotten the name Aaron Beck. He had this triad of why people are depressed.
they have negative thoughts about:....

1. The self,....
2. The world/environment, and....
3. The future.....

for example

"i am worthless" (self)
"the world is a #ty place" (environment)
"my past sucks so my future is hopeless" (future)

and more stuff you probably say to yourself on a daily basis.

Now this guy whose name you've already forgotten, this Beck guy. Just think of the singer Beck everytime i mention him and you will remember. Beck said the reason depressed people were depressed is because they drew illogical conclusions about situations... which leads to a distortion of reality, which leads to everything seeming crappy and yadayadayada

>SNIP<

but i digress...

[Mod edit - removal of extremely objectionable reference]


[edit on 7/10/2009 by yeahright]

to continue, all Beck was saying in fancy talk was depressed people have low self-esteem (oh really).

So does science, have the same viewpoint as a depressed person? they draw illogical conclusions, which leads to a distorted reality, which manifiests in negative outlook. and i'm just talking about the depressed person. but science also draws illogical conclusions which leads to distorted results, which ends up with you being taught in schools that we came from the big bang to this point in time accidentally through random chance. and then you think that when you die you just black out so why not kill yourself? and then that kid goes and kills himself and your like damn, must've been that damn rap music.

so is scientific thinking illogical you may ask? Western rationalism has that "if i cant measure it it cant be measured" mindset (yeah thats a mindf&*k). if you cant see it feel it smell it touch it, or taste it it isn't measurable so get the hell outta here. so science has to be biased and keep everything that is in the realm of non measurable out of its religion. i mean it makes sense right, you can't build a consistent knowledge system by accepting poorly validated concepts.

So back to what i first said. does science have the same viewpoint of a depressed person? they're thinking is highly illogical. quantum physics proved all that. quantum theory was born and they're like alright we're good, this model makes more sense. then there was the problem of conscious observer (they found out that electrons behave differently if someone is paying attention vs. not paying attention). mindf&$k number 2. so then they just branched out into a whole bunch of pseduo- quantum physics theories to try and explain it. so now scientists dont know what reality is. uh oh. we're wrong? about everything? sh%^.

so. everything you have been told is a lie. science is just as much as a religion as the next. they base their belief system around things on faith. faith that the big bang happened. faith that the evolutionary theory is true. faith that the world is flat. etc.

so don't believe what anyone tells you. even me. just make up your own damn mind for once.

but it does make me think: why do no fewer than seven belief systems all believe in the same thing? that you are the truth? How the hell do these seven belief systems that span hundreds of thousands of years and have originated thousands of miles apart believe in the same exact thing? We can’t even get two scientists in the same lab to agree on something.

.. ..

Your still doin that yadayadayadayada thing aren’t you

reply to post by dannyfal


Generally, I would agree with you, but some of your concepts are false.

the basic concepts science holds about the human phenomenon is as follows:
1.man is the by-product of mere chance
2.we live in a universe alien to us and ignorant of our destiny
3.we have come from nothingness and will return to nothingness after death

What science REALLY says, is THIS:
1. Man is the byproduct of aggregate *deterministic* changes within himself to better adapt to his environment.
2. We live in a world that we are SUITED for, in a universe that is CORRECT for our type of life to exist in.
3. We *don't* KNOW where consciousness comes from, or what happens to it after death.

i mean evolution is just a theory right?

Scientific Theories are *MADE OF FACTS*

Genetic drift has been observed.
en.wikipedia.org...

Speciation has been observed.
en.wikipedia.org...

The evolutionary changes underwent by our ancestor species have been tracked through:

Genetic Morphology.
en.wikipedia.org...(biology)

Confirmed through Mitochondrial DNA
en.wikipedia.org...

And confirmed through Transitional Fossils found in the correct level of geological stratum.
en.wikipedia.org...

and no one was really around during the big bang, so i guess we really haven't proven anything 100%

We have observed all objects in the universe moving away from each other through the Doppler shift of light (RedShift), we have observed the riinal energy signature of the universe (Hydrogen spectral lines) with the correct amount of Redshift that correlates to 13-14 billion years ago.

This, and vector mapping, is how we know that All matter was in the same place some 13-14 billion years ago.

Scientism: "There is no Buddha" we smoked it all

The correct way of stating sciences take on religion, is Thusly represented:

"Science: "We do not know if there is a buddha, God, Allah, Thor, Odin, Yahweh, etc..."

Science is NOT atheistic... it is AGNOSTIC.

I suggest you look up the differences between the two.

Jeeze... you just don't understand science at all do you?





-Edrick

[edit on 10-7-2009 by Edrick]

well my main problem with evolution is that it takes a conclusion then looks for facts to support the conclusion (inductive reasoning)

opposed to putting facts together to come to a conclusion (deductive reasoning)

all of the support for evolution you provided could lead to hundreds of different theories. you can take genetic drift, speciation, genetic morphology, mitochondrial DNA, and transitional fossils and come up with a MUCH better theory on how we came to be. think of it like this. what if darwin was never born and never came up with the evolutionary theory. what would we come up with if we had pieced together the evidence we have now? i don't believe we'd come up with the evolution we have today. by the way i should note i believe that microevolution is an observable fact/phenomenon. that is undebatable.

We have observed all objects in the universe moving away from each other through the Doppler shift of light (RedShift), we have observed the riinal energy signature of the universe (Hydrogen spectral lines) with the correct amount of Redshift that correlates to 13-14 billion years ago.

This, and vector mapping, is how we know that All matter was in the same place some 13-14 billion years ago.

again... this is just another example of inductive reasoning... the doppler shift just tells us that the universe is expanding right? i don't see how that proves the Big Bang in any way. i don't know much about vector mapping... i tried googling it with big bang and didn't come up with anything so i can't really argue that.

i think your missing the main point i was trying to get at. that science must take a "leap of faith" to believe in things such as evolution and the big bang. the same way any other religion needs to take a leap of faith.

Science is NOT atheistic... it is AGNOSTIC.

I don't recall making that statement. My statement of Scientism: "There is no Buddha" we smoked it all... was an obvious pun. i think what i was trying to imply from that statement was that science does not believe in a "higher intelligence". but i can see how you could have interpreted it the way you did. i am aware of the difference between atheism and agnosticism. i believe the current scientific viewpoint of evolution and the big bang theory are purely atheistic. i was never taught that "maybe god made all this, we just dont know" in school.

i think you were missing the main point of the post. it was the comparison between the way a depressed person thinks and how science thinks... they both have a somewhat negative idea of how the world works. of course this is arguable, which is what i thought would spur up discussion. the evolution vs. creationism thread has been done to death. if you notice in the end i rejected all forms of religion including science so it really wasn't my intention to do the whole back and forth thing with evolution.

Jeeze... you just don't understand science at all do you?

i'm not sure what an ad hominem attack is any good for, it tells us more about yourself than it does about me. perhaps the ego should be put aside in these types of discussions.

reply to post by Edrick

edited.

I wholly object to Edrick's post above. But am editing to keep the peace.

Good post OP.


[edit on 10-7-2009 by eniac]

[edit on 10-7-2009 by eniac]

reply to post by eniac


lol thanks for backing me up man, but theres really no need to get all fiesty over this stuff. we all have our own crazy beliefs, and yes he may have tried to back up his claims with the same BS we see on ATS all the time... but i mean attacking his character isn't gonna help to the discussion. let him believe what he wants and you can believe what you want none of us will ever know what we're talking about.

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by dannyfal

 

and no one was really around during the big bang, so i guess we really haven't proven anything 100%

We have observed all objects in the universe moving away from each other through the Doppler shift of light (RedShift), we have observed the riinal energy signature of the universe (Hydrogen spectral lines) with the correct amount of Redshift that correlates to 13-14 billion years ago.

This, and vector mapping, is how we know that All matter was in the same place some 13-14 billion years ago.

Scientism: "There is no Buddha" we smoked it all

The correct way of stating sciences take on religion, is Thusly represented:

"Science: "We do not know if there is a buddha, God, Allah, Thor, Odin, Yahweh, etc..."

Science is NOT atheistic... it is AGNOSTIC.

I suggest you look up the differences between the two.

Jeeze... you just don't understand science at all do you?

-Edrick

[edit on 10-7-2009 by Edrick]

From what I have learned from big bang theory(and I admit it's not much) we can only see as far as so many light years away at this time, as light has not reached us as yet from everywhere. We know that things are "spreading out" but not from what, exactly.

So we may only be seing a small fraction of the universe, until many many years from now(when the light reaches earth), and even then it may not be the whole of the universe(some believe it is infinite).

I could be wrong though, like I said, I'm no physicist.

dannyfal: great OPs, that was a good read. S+F

[edit on 10-7-2009 by dragonking76]

reply to post by dannyfal

well my main problem with evolution is that it takes a conclusion then looks for facts to support the conclusion (inductive reasoning)

This proves my last statement, that you don't understand science at all.

Thus, my statement was an observation, as opposed to a commentary.

MY theory of your viewpoint was that you do not understand science.

Your sentence that I just quoted fits within the predictable framework of my theory, and thus, validates it.

This is how science works.

1. We make observations about the world.

2. We compose an explanation (Theory) that would explain that observation.

3. We test that theory, by making predictions based on that theory, and then testing those predictions, we can assertain the validity, or fallacy of that theory.

4. If the theory bears the rigors of peer review, scientific testing, and makes accurate and testable predictions, then the theory is accepted by the scientific community at large.



In the case of the "Big Bang" theory, it was observed through redshift, that all galaxies were moving away from each other, and plotting their course backwards, we noticed that they all occupied the same point in space.

The prediction that was tested (That validated big bang theory) was that in the early universe, the newly formed hydrogen atoms (At extreme temperatures) would have given off immense amounts of light.

That liht would have been "Redshifted" to another part of the spectrum in accordance with how long the universe has been expanding.

Useing a Redio telescope, radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation in the Microwave band.

This observation confirmed the predicted Hydrogen band energy redshift phenomenon that was consistent with the "Big Bang" Theory, and corroborated the Time since the Bang at 13-14 billion years, the exact same time frame that the Vector plotting gave us.

This is how science works.

We start with observation, ALWAYS.

all of the support for evolution you provided could lead to hundreds of different theories.

No, they could not.

The general theory of "Evolution" is that species mutate on a enetic level, and the more beneficial mutations are passed on more rapidly to the descendants of any given breeding population.

Perhapse we would not CALL it "Evolution" but it would be the EXACT same theory.

The reason that "Hundreds" of different theories would NOT have been created, is that this collective process that we have dubbed "Evolution" is *WHAT IS HAPPENING*

IT is what we observe.

There CANT be another theory, because it WOULD NOT BE ACCURATE.

by the way i should note i believe that microevolution is an observable fact/phenomenon. that is undebatable.

Microevolution, and MACROevolution are the exact same process.

This statement of yours is further proof that you do not understand how science works.

This is not an AD Homenim attack... this is observable reality that I am communicating to you.

You Do NOT Understand Science.

again... this is just another example of inductive reasoning

Yes, it IS inductive reasoning... because we can not DIRECTLY OBSERVE the beginnings of the universe.

But we can Deduce a GREAT DEAL about the original conditions by observing present conditions.

And Until you can invent a TIME MACHINE, Inductive reasoning is all we can rely on.

i don't see how that proves the Big Bang in any way. i don't know much about vector mapping... i tried googling it with big bang and didn't come up with anything so i can't really argue that.

Sigh....

Vector mapping is OBSERVING what direction all the galaxies ar moving in.

Our observation is that they are all moving Away from eachother equally.

If we were to reverse their direction, we would see that they would all occupy the same point in space, some 14 billion years ago.

We do this by "Mapping" their "Vectors" or "Velocity"

i think your missing the main point i was trying to get at. that science must take a "leap of faith" to believe in things such as evolution and the big bang. the same way any other religion needs to take a leap of faith.

No, what you have just said is the Dictionary Definition of the word "WRONG"

Science does not ALLOW faith.

IF we cannot Prove through testing something that it exists, or takes place, then it is NOT science.

I don't recall making that statement. My statement of Scientism: "There is no Buddha" we smoked it all... was an obvious pun.

Well then, I apologize... I must have missed your attempt at humor.

i think you were missing the main point of the post. it was the comparison between the way a depressed person thinks and how science thinks... they both have a somewhat negative idea of how the world works. of course this is arguable, which is what i thought would spur up discussion. the evolution vs. creationism thread has been done to death. if you notice in the end i rejected all forms of religion including science so it really wasn't my intention to do the whole back and forth thing with evolution.

That's the whole point isnt it?

Science is NOT a religion, NOTHING in science is taken on FAITH.

Science is about KNOWLEDGE through OBSERVATION and TESTING of processes that OCCUR in the universe, and our reality.

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick


i guess we can agree to disagree. evolution is a theory my friend. and i know you know that. so theres no reason to pretend like it is.

and microevolution and macroevolution are the same process? lol and you claim i don't know anything about science. you just shot down your own credibility. thank you for doing my job!

Originally posted by Edrick

Yes, it IS inductive reasoning... because we can not DIRECTLY OBSERVE the beginnings of the universe.

thank you for further supporting my point and contradicting your previous statements

and i guess i have to ask... why do you hold on to your beliefs so tightly? if you don't think science as a belief system is not like a religion you'd probably be a little more open minded regarding other belief systems

reply to post by dannyfal

and microevolution and macroevolution are the same process? lol and you claim i don't know anything about science. you just shot down your own credibility. thank you for doing my job!

Macroevolution is the aggregate of a multitude of Microevolutions.

If you have enough Microevolutions, you end up with Macroevolution.

What part of this do you not understand?



And I misspoke earlier, the Science of the Big Bang is NOT inductive reasoning, it is DEDUCTIVE reasoning.

and i guess i have to ask... why do you hold on to your beliefs so tightly? if you don't think science as a belief system is not like a religion you'd probably be a little more open minded regarding other belief systems

This is the problem...

IT is not a BELIEF I hold.

We are talking about KNOWLEDGE, NOT BELIEF.

We can PROVE the truth of science, so it is NOT a belief system.


You are trying to state that science is just another form of belief.

You Are WRONG.

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

"Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate."


So, Belief is a psychological predication to truth.

Whereas knowledge is a direct observation, and testing of truth.


Let me tell you the difference between belief and knowledge.


Belief claims that their is a god.

Knowledge States that A=A


Knowledge does NOT require belief.

And belief does NOT REQUIRE knowledge.


The two are not the same thing, no matter how much you want to believe they are.


Science is not a religion.

-Edrick

reply to post by dannyfal

i guess we can agree to disagree. evolution is a theory my friend. and i know you know that. so theres no reason to pretend like it is.

Are you just trying to troll here?

Yes, evolution is a theory.

So is gravity.
Though we can PROVE that gravity exists

So is the Atomic Model
Though we can PROVE that atoms are definately real.

So is Germ theory.
Though we have PROVEN COUNTLESS TIMES that germs are definately, and beyond a shadow of a doubt REAL.

So is MUSIC THEORY.
But you would not claim that music does not happen?


The problem here is:

You do not know what a Theory *IS*


Stop using these words that you do not understand.

theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick


your gonna need to back up that micro to macro evolution thing with a source buddy

if you have enough microevolutions you have macroevolution? and i ain't talkin wikipedia. the source wikipedia got it from is ok.

and yes, science is a belief system... it is what you believe in. you believe that the physical reality is all there is. you believe that unseen forces cannot act upon the physical, etc. you can throw in dictionary.com definitions as much as you want but its all semantics. if you truely believe that science is not incorporated into your beliefs than you must be misled.

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." it seems like that fits your description pretty well

and evolution is a theory... an incorrect theory. doesn't matter how many dictionary.com definitions you copy and paste, it doesn't change the fact that the theory of evolution has failed to provide answers.

there is just as much "evidence" that disproves evolutionary theory than there is that supports it. i'm not gonna sit here and paste a bunch of sources claiming this and that cause i'm not succumbing to this game. like i said we will have to agree to disagree.

there is no way to get life from non-life. something from nothing is mathematically, scientifically, and logically impossible. the impossibility of spontaneous generation is one of the first fundamental tenets of science that a child learns.

i posted this in the psychology, philosophy, and metaphysics thread. not the science thread. i was posing a philosophical/psychological question. i never claimed to be an expert in anything.

now i'm not sure why the mod never marked your post as off topic because whether evolution is true or not does not change the fundamental question i was pondering:
do scientists view the world in a negative light simliar to a depressed person?
i ask this question because once i changed my viewpoint from "science is all there is" to "theres more to life than our 5 sense" it dramatically changed my emotional states

eniac ... feel free to throw in your two cents... now i feel like a fool for telling you to take out what you said.


[edit on 10-7-2009 by dannyfal]

reply to post by dannyfal

your gonna need to back up that micro to macro evolution thing with a source buddy

You're going to need to differentiate what you mean by micro and macro evolution with a source buddy.

and yes, science is a belief system... it is what you believe in. you believe that the physical reality is all there is.

No, that is not how science works.

Science does NOT believe that physical reality is all there is.

Science does not INCORPORATE anything that cannot be observed.

Thusly, things that cannot be observed, are left out of science, since we cannot objectively KNOW them.

Science does not state that invisible, intangible unicorns living inside our heads, that legislate morality are NOT real.

Science only states that no evidence has been presented for this claim that can be verified.

Science is not a BELIEF system, it is a KNOWLEDGE system.

and evolution is a theory... an incorrect theory.

Do you have a better theory?

there is just as much "evidence" that disproves evolutionary theory than there is that supports it.

Source plx?

i'm not gonna sit here and paste a bunch of sources claiming this and that cause i'm not succumbing to this game. like i said we will have to agree to disagree.

Of course you are not... then your claim of "Evolution is not real" is completely without merit.

Thusly... you are wrong.

there is no way to get life from non-life.

I believe the second video that I posted provides pretty strong evidence to the contrary, actually.

Mathematically, scientifically, logically, and with chemistry.

do scientists view the world in a negative light simliar to a depressed person?

As a rule, this is not true for scientists.

SOME scientists may be depressed, this is true.

But this is in no way indicative of scientists in general.

i ask this question because once i changed my viewpoint from "science is all there is" to "theres more to life than our 5 sense" it dramatically changed my emotional states

Ok, here is the problem.

Science is NOT all there is.

Science is a tool that we humans use to understand ALL THERE IS.

IT is very possible, extremely probable, and in fact I wholeheartedly agree, that there is more than our 5 senses can tell us in the world/universe.


Do you know what we would call these non observable phenomenon if we managed to observe and understand them?


We would call it Science.


-Edrick

reply to post by Edrick

ahhh come on edrick we can do this for weeks.

i'll define macroevolution as the theory that, somehow, gene mutations increased the amount of genetic information, thus creating new kinds of animals, tissue, organs, and cells.

"Microevolution refers to mutations in species, which in ALL cases results in a LOSS of information. Darwin himself said that he knew of no cases in which a mutation was remotely advantageous to an organism. In order for Macroevolution to occur, there must be an increase in information in order to develop different traits in different animals. There have been countless examples of microevolution that we have observed in nature, but there have been NO instances of macroevolution. The current observable mutations prove it, and the fossil record, with its absolute lack of transitional fossils also proves it."

when i say macro i mean basically how does a human come from a protozoa.

these are such big ideas here, i just don't think science has the right answer is all.

you say science is a tool we use to understand all there is... but "all there is" according to science is only what we can observe and measure. from my viewpoint, science doesn't try to understand "all there is" because there are things that are not observable nor measurable, but are a huge part of reality or "all there is"

lets just say the physical is just 1% of what is out there. that means we're missing 99% of what the hell is going on.

so screw what we disagree on... what can we agree on?

reply to post by dannyfal


Ok, working this one backwards...

so screw what we disagree on... what can we agree on?

Ok, let's see here....

you say science is a tool we use to understand all there is... but "all there is" according to science is only what we can observe and measure. from my viewpoint, science doesn't try to understand "all there is" because there are things that are not observable nor measurable, but are a huge part of reality or "all there is"

Yes, you are correct, Science can only measure and test that which is observable.

That is exactly what science is.

Anything that is NOT measurable, or odservable, does not fall into the categories, or jurisdiction OF science.

This does not necessarily mean that things that are not observable are False.

But it Does mean, that science cannot take ANY position on the matter, one way or another.

lets just say the physical is just 1% of what is out there. that means we're missing 99% of what the hell is going on.

Yes, but science cannot explain what we cannot imperially know to be true, false, or observable.

It is not that science is WRONG in the instances of what it cannot observe, it simply means that our Knowledge of the universe is not complete enough to understand or observe these phenomenon.

For example... let's take ghosts, spirits, etc...

Whether they exist or not, is *SO FAR* impossible to detect (Observe) through scientific method.

This neither Proves or Disproves (Scientifically) their existence, it merely keeps them outside the realm of Science.


Take Electromagnetic waves for anouther instance.

Before, we did not know what Electromagnetic waves were, how to measure them, etc...

You could claim that they were real, or false, and at the time, science could not really say anything about them.

Until we found a way to detect them, and Verify their existence imperially, they were for all intents and purposes, outside of our knowledge, and therefore, beyond the realms of science.

And that is all that Science really means anyways.

Science is Knowledge.

If we don't know, we don't know.

We can still believe, but belief does not equal knowledge.


I agree that the majority of reality is unknown to us.

But that is precisely WHY we have science.


What is unknown, through observation, prediction, hypothesis, theory, and repetitive testing, becomes Known... Thus, becomes Science.

Science is not Bunk... it is merely incomplete.

And science will remain to be incomplete, mainly because We don't really have the capacity to know everything.

But we CAN know of things that we can observe, and since we can observe it, we can theorize as to the mechanism through which it works.

When we have a Theoretical framework that adequately describes its processes, and makes testable predictions about the phenomenon, Then, IT is science, IT is known.

ok... now on to the Ugly part.

Microevolution refers to mutations in species, which in ALL cases results in a LOSS of information.

This is False.

Mutations are a reordering, or addition of genetic material.

Darwin himself said that he knew of no cases in which a mutation was remotely advantageous to an organism.

We have, since he spoke that phrase, found definitive mutations that bestow advantages to their possessors.

This article speaks about a genetic mutation that provides resistance, and in some cases, virtual immunity to AIDS.
www.wired.com...

Now, I would call that an Advantage, wouldn't you?

And this article describes a toddler whose genetic mutation has provided him with a form of super strength that is not possible in most all people.
abcnews.go.com...

I would call that an advantage also.

In order for Macroevolution to occur, there must be an increase in information in order to develop different traits in different animals.

And what do you mean by "Information"

The Genetic code is made of only 4 base pairs of amino acids.

Guanine, thymine, antonine, and cytocene.

Our DNA is merely these 4 base pairs, in different sequences, repeated trillions of times.

We know that the DNA strands can increase in length, indicating that they increase in the ammount of Base Pairs of Amino Acids.

Technically speaking, THAT is an increase in information.

There have been countless examples of microevolution that we have observed in nature, but there have been NO instances of macroevolution.

Many microevolutions over time constitute macroevolution.

I mean, look at the difference between a horse and a deer.

They are pretty much the same animal, except for minor differences.

One has horns, the other does not.

One is typically larger than the other.

Etc, etc, etc...

Tiny variations, over time, in separate breeding populations create differences so vast that the two (Once The Same) species are no longer interfertile (They cant cross breed)

This is known as Speciation.

The current observable mutations prove it, and the fossil record, with its absolute lack of transitional fossils also proves it.

And this is also False.

The fossil record actually has MANY examples of transitional species.

Take a look here at the Smithsonian institute Anthropology website for examples.

anthropology.si.edu...

And this website that give numerous examples of Transitional Forms.

www.talkorigins.org...


-Edrick

alright man i tap out i can't argue most of that stuff so i'll just leave it as you win. but at least i found out you weren't as close minded as i thought. you argue well and i can't articulate my thoughts well enough to even try to respond. no one else has anything to say?

I think that science is nowhere near a 'belief system' like Christianity or Sikhism or Joe Pescism.

Nowhere near them. At all.

BUT I see this thread has run its course so I'm not gonna try getting any debate started again.

[edit on 7/10/2009 by Romantic Rights]

[edit on 7/10/2009 by Romantic Rights]

i'm just gonna have to say... theres probably a good amount of people on ATS that believe that science is just as close minded as any faith

Originally posted by dannyfal
i'm just gonna have to say... theres probably a good amount of people on ATS that believe that science is just as close minded as any faith

Unfortunately, I will have to agree with you there.

As there are plenty of people who in fact DO "believe" science... when belief is not scientific at all.

I think that this is the problem that you were talking about in the beginning, and that is the complete misunderstanding of the scientific process by people who have "Faith" in science.

In that, it is not science that is a belief or faith based system, it is the people who venerate science as such that are the problem.

Of course, the same could be said with religion also... as Religions were, for the most part, the Original Science (Attempt to understand and explain the universe) and philosophy of the day.

Unfortunately, in those times, our understanding of reality was quite primitive (by today's standards) and thus, many "Unknowns" were merely explained away as "Magic"

Science is more honest in this respect, in that if we don't understand something, then we simply say, "I don't Know" or at least, that is what we SHOULD say.


I have posted on some other threads here, defending the existence of Chi energy from those who would say that "Science is all there is" so I DO sympathize with you.

As science cannot at the current time say whether this "Energy" is real or not, it cannot be said to be "Known" one way or another.

Therefore, claiming that Chi energy does NOT exist, is unscientific.


-Edrick