Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 209 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#22050 - 06/13/07 02:31 AM About Science
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
It is a wonder, this brave new world. So varied, yet so grand, in all areas. A wonder really, that this all is possible, the verdant trees, the azure oceans, the glorious sunrises. To think: how is this possible? One man says one thing, another says another. Yet who is right, explaining this vast universe?
Is the man saying there is a Being, who formed this correct? Or the man saying due to many and various mutations, we formed correct? Or is the mediator?
Formerly, I was a quote fundamentalist, who believed in a literal six-day creation account. Appalled by the theory of evolution, and such untrueness. Now, I have somewhat changed my viewpoint.
I still would disagree with some areas of evolution; for example, the science they teach us at school (high school). Last year I had Biology, and have Chemistry this year, and we are not taught even the basics of science, just something that I seriously presume has been picked up out of a hat. For example, in Chemistry, we learn about moles and computing grams, just to find how many grams would be in a substance if another in the same equation has X grams. In effect, we learn how to use the formulas, but not why they are formulas in the first place. It would help if they teach us about former scientists observations, and a lecture about how and why, instead of “Here it is, input numbers here, get an A in the class, who cares.”
Thus, do to those and many other reasons, we are not taught to think rationally, but rather to accept information on faith. Which, in my opinion, is hypocritical to the scientific method. For we should be taught how it works, by formulas observable in the natural world (and how they came about), and use them (if needed) in applied sciences. Now this agreement is mainly for Chemistry, for Biology was slightly better, yet we just learn definitions, but not the evidence for evolution and such. Therefore, it achieves the opposite of what it is intended to do. This is not a plea for better education in public schools (although that would be enjoyable), but it is what inhibits growth and learning for science, and instead makes people ignorant that dogmatic atheistic evolution is the only world viewpoint due to what is narrowly taught (without mention of evidence or how it works) in the classes.
Therefore, the science that is taught today produces a two-fold effect. The first is that it keeps those ignorant of the true bounds of science, including how and what it is. Rather it tells us what to do with what is found, in order to complete the class; paternally. In addition, without pre-knowledge, people criticize other systems than evolution, having been taught it as the only way, where there are many other possibilities present (whether true or not).
Nevertheless, I have found fault in both the creationism worldview, and the evolutionary worldview.
This world, this good earth, on which we trample on, it was not merely an accident. How else would you explain the twinkling stars gazing down in the midst of darkness, the birds chirping in April? Evolution would not disprove a Creator of this universe. As a former creationist, our argument against evolution would be that it is against the Bible (a rather pitiful argument by itself, yet sincere). Yet the truth is, is that it is compatible with the Bible. Now the atheistic worldview taught at schools (yes, witnessed firsthand) that is unscientific, as mentioned above, is not true evolution or science. Would you think that Charles Darwin himself, living today, would look with pride at the progress of his system? No, on the contrary, he would most likely be appalled by it and its unrationality posing as rationality. In effect, it has become what it has vowed to destroy.
It can be seen that many United States citizens have a deficiency for scientific knowledge, and that is why. They are taught the milk, and not the meat and potatoes of the matter. They are also fed imitation-milk, posed as the real thing. Creates dogmatic, ignorant citizens of what scientific findings suggest, which is also achieved through censorship.

Now, on a tangent, these are my reformed beliefs. First, one cannot say with perfect preciseness how and when and why the earth is created. The closest thing we can do is observe the natural world around us. But that creates opinions; for one might say “Look at the handicraft of God,” while another, “It’s just a rock,” or another, “This must have eroded over millions of years.”
I would agree with some evolutionary beliefs; which include that it is happening around us, but would differ with such modernists and what is taught in the schools. There is, of course, evidence for this theory around us, yet is still a theory, and not fact, as many people believe (therefore, I would agree with some aspects, and not other pseudoscientific claims). And also, it would not negate the existence of a creator. Mind you, it might not be exidence exclusively denoting his existence, in big black letters written atop the sands. For, I ask you, what difference would it make if the evolutionary process was guided by a creator or not?
In some ways, I would identify myself with the Intelligent Design movement, if they stick also to the facts. But my views would not portray any mainstream viewpoint, I don’t think. And I am willing to bend, if my position is not the truth, and that is evident to me.
As for a creator: yes, I would believe there is one; some call him God. Perhaps He is everything, perhaps nothing of everything. He is. Let me explain my position this way: one is pondering in the dense forests, and sees a building pop up of seemingly nowhere. He wonders, for the idea of such a thing is foreign to him. Surely there is someone who built this, for he knows it is impossible for something to be made out of nothing. But he knows nothing of this builder, except that he built this. Perhaps out of love, or possibly for his own pleasure, to show off his workmanship. The man who witnessed this cannot make an assertion that the creator of this has certain attributes solely on this demonstration. He must have more evidence, but deductive and inductive. Nor can he say that this building is the result of millions of combinations of possibilities that just happened to coincide with one another to make that certain arrangement of particles. He would have to explore for himself to see how and why this was made. In effect, he cannot be dogmatic in his view so as to question others who are not in agreement based upon limited knowledge. If we were omniscient, then yes, but we are not so.
The route for science is scire, meaning “to know, to discern” coming from an Indo-European word meaning to cut. Its purpose is to cut up the world around us, package it into tiny pieces, and examine their contents. Religion, on the other hand, could possibly be traced to the Latin religare “to tie back” from ligare “to bind”. It is binded in order to study its overt contents, while science tries to study in inside workings behind that. One is not true, the other false, they are simply two systems of observing the same medium. Perhaps they might overlap, yet when one system shows the other not capable of such, explanations must be restrained. The religious should not be inhibited by science, nor the scientists by religion, is what I am saying. They are compatible.
I support science, and evolution. That does not mean I would agree in the way that it is traveling, with its sprinkled pseudo-scientific dogmas and political connotations associated to it. I also support religion, for their motives are pure, and teaches moral values somehow lost by a culture supporting evolution. I am my own category, supporting both, which most consider polar opposites. In this great country of America, we are given religious diversity and free speech. Let us not upset that by chronicling the faults of others, let us rise up, together, united. Let us break the bonds of our society, and rise up into a more glorious future. A future far greater than we could have imagined, far surpassing our expectations lies past this harbor, we just need to set sail. And traverse together, in light. Let us put aside our differences.


Top
.
#22051 - 06/13/07 02:33 AM Re: About Science [Re: Tim]
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
I have not been on this site for a long time, and have since changed my views significantly. During the summer perhaps I will be on more, I was just procrastinating for my finals laugh

Top
#22058 - 06/13/07 08:03 AM Re: About Science [Re: Tim]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
I agree with a lot of what you said there Tim although you are probably aware I'm an atheist. You wrote:

"in Chemistry, we learn about moles and computing grams, just to find how many grams would be in a substance if another in the same equation has X grams. In effect, we learn how to use the formulas, but not why they are formulas in the first place."

You mostly learn that stuff so that you can be an effective lab technician. When I did my teacher training I realised that "It would help if they teach us about former scientists observations". If you are aware of how early scientists reached their conclusions you understand the subject much better. History is important.

Regarding evolution. Most teachers don't understand how it happens anyway so how can they explain it? You need a good understanding of genetics, geology, botany, zoology and plant and animal breeding before you begin to understand it. Look forward to hearing more from you. "We are given religious diversity and free speech. Let us not upset that by chronicling the faults of others, let us rise up, together, united. Let us break the bonds of our society, and rise up into a more glorious future." Note, I'm not limiting it to America.

Top
#22067 - 06/13/07 10:51 PM Re: About Science [Re: terrytnewzealand]
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
"Most teachers don't understand how it happens anyway so how can they explain it?"
Haha, my point exactly. And thanks.

Top
#22088 - 06/14/07 04:07 PM Re: About Science [Re: Tim]
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
When a good science major graduates from college in the US, she most likely has a heavy burden of debt from school loans. It's hard to become a science teacher, under those conditions.

"Thus, do to those and many other reasons, we are not taught to think rationally, but rather to accept information on faith. Which, in my opinion, is hypocritical to the scientific method."

I would like to see classes on rational thought and false argument starting in early grades. I would like to see such classes applied to everyday life as well as science. Guiding kids through the deconstruction of commercial and political advertising would be key.
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#22089 - 06/14/07 04:26 PM Re: About Science [Re: Tim]
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: Tim
Now, on a tangent, these are my reformed beliefs. First, one cannot say with perfect preciseness how and when and why the earth is created. The closest thing we can do is observe the natural world around us. But that creates opinions; for one might say “Look at the handicraft of God,” while another, “It’s just a rock,” or another, “This must have eroded over millions of years.”
I would agree with some evolutionary beliefs; which include that it is happening around us, but would differ with such modernists and what is taught in the schools. There is, of course, evidence for this theory around us, yet is still a theory, and not fact, as many people believe (therefore, I would agree with some aspects, and not other pseudoscientific claims).


The "fact" is that evolution happens. The theory is the proposed mechanisms, and they way they interact. Accepted theory is as close as any scenario can get to fact, in the sciences. Your science educators failed to explain the difference between a scientific theory and the common definition of the word.

Quote:
And also, it would not negate the existence of a creator. Mind you, it might not be exidence exclusively denoting his existence, in big black letters written atop the sands. For, I ask you, what difference would it make if the evolutionary process was guided by a creator or not?


Evolution does not negate the existence of a creator. A creator is irrelevent to the theory. You can believe in one or not, and still be fine biologist.

We have no evidence that it is guided by a creator.

Quote:
As for a creator: yes, I would believe there is one; some call him God. Perhaps He is everything, perhaps nothing of everything. He is. Let me explain my position this way: one is pondering in the dense forests, and sees a building pop up of seemingly nowhere. He wonders, for the idea of such a thing is foreign to him. Surely there is someone who built this, for he knows it is impossible for something to be made out of nothing.


Wouldn't the building be made of pre-existing materials? I don't get your point here.

Quote:
But he knows nothing of this builder, except that he built this. Perhaps out of love, or possibly for his own pleasure, to show off his workmanship. The man who witnessed this cannot make an assertion that the creator of this has certain attributes solely on this demonstration. He must have more evidence, but deductive and inductive. Nor can he say that this building is the result of millions of combinations of possibilities that just happened to coincide with one another to make that certain arrangement of particles. He would have to explore for himself to see how and why this was made. In effect, he cannot be dogmatic in his view so as to question others who are not in agreement based upon limited knowledge. If we were omniscient, then yes, but we are not so.


Good approach.

Quote:
I support science, and evolution. That does not mean I would agree in the way that it is traveling, with its sprinkled pseudo-scientific dogmas and political connotations associated to it.


If you explain what you consider "pseudo-scientific dogmas" in the theory of evolution, maybe someone here could better explain those parts of the theory to you. I am fairly well versed in it, and I am not aware of any pseudo-scientific dogmas within.

Quote:
I also support religion, for their motives are pure, and teaches moral values somehow lost by a culture supporting evolution.


Do you live in the US, like I do? If so, the vast majority of people in our culture do NOT believe evolution is valid, and do NOT really understand evolution or most other scientific theories. If you see moral decay around you, consider other reasons.
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#22092 - 06/14/07 08:38 PM Re: About Science [Re: soilguy]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Tim, you refer to science "with its sprinkled pseudo-scientific dogmas". There is pseudoscience out there, and it gives real science a bad name. It's usually easy to spot - there are tips on several websites explaining how a non-scientist can recognise it. The best solution to any doubts we may have about evolution, for example, is to study the theory in depth. That doesn't mean "go get a PhD", it just means learning enough to know why decades of intensive research by many thousands of dedicated research scientists in various specialist fields has lead them to their unanimous conclusion.

If children are told that the moon is made of cheese, sooner or later they will acquire new facts that cast doubt on that. They'll be able to piece together the many new facts they have about the world and draw a more rational conclusion. The children's original belief that the moon was made of cheese was reasonable because that's what they were told, and children have a strong tendency to believe what they are told. In order to see through the fallacy, they had to learn more facts, and to use their reason and intelligence to assemble those facts into a coherent 'reality'. What they do, unknowingly, is to apply the scientific method. Sometimes, children are not encouraged to do that - they are encouraged to believe that only faith and religious dogma can provide a true understanding of physical reality.

Unfortunately, there are many people for whom the "scientific method" is nothing more than meaningless jargon. Some still deny that men have walked on the moon - they insist that it's all a nasty conspiracy. Likewise, in the face of staggering evidence that amounts to nothing less than proof, many people adamantly insist that evolution does not and cannot happen. None of those people are scientists, and all of them demonstrate ignorance of the scientific method. That is to say, that they do not assemble the facts and draw conclusions from them. They assemble their dogmatic convictions, and see what facts they can find to fit them; any facts that don't fit are discarded.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#22095 - 06/14/07 11:59 PM Re: About Science [Re: redewenur]
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
"The best solution to any doubts we may have about evolution, for example, is to study the theory in depth."
Yes, I have done that, through reading The Origin of Species, the Bible, observing the world around me, and reading various books dealing with the sciences and religion and philosophy. I have for myself found a view not rejecting evolution nor religion.
And to answer Soliguy, I do think that the majority of our population beleives in evolution, well at least where I live. Perhaps the rest of the country is different, but I do not know. But from my experiences, evolution is beleived the majority of the time.

Top
#22098 - 06/15/07 03:57 AM Re: About Science [Re: Tim]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Tim wrote regarding understanding evolution:

"Yes, I have done that, through reading The Origin of Species".

Now that is a fine book but our ideas have been considerably modified since Darwin's time. However observing the world around you is a very good start to understanding the subject.

Redewenur wrote:

"children have a strong tendency to believe what they are told".

Just as well or none would survive past their toddler years.

Soilguy wrote:

"I would like to see classes on rational thought and false argument starting in early grades. I would like to see such classes applied to everyday life as well as science. Guiding kids through the deconstruction of commercial and political advertising would be key."

And the sooner we start the better. Mind you marketing agents wouldn't really support the idea.


Edited by terrytnewzealand (06/15/07 03:58 AM)

Top
#22101 - 06/15/07 04:53 AM Re: About Science [Re: terrytnewzealand]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: soilguy
I would like to see classes on rational thought and false argument starting in early grades. I would like to see such classes applied to everyday life as well as science. Guiding kids through the deconstruction of commercial and political advertising would be key.

Agreed. It would probably contribute to a remedy for the American 'pandemic of unreason', and similar classes should be held in teacher training facilities.

Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
Redewenur wrote:

"children have a strong tendency to believe what they are told".

Just as well or none would survive past their toddler years.

Yes, of course; and the other natural asset that should stand them in good stead is curiosity.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#22102 - 06/15/07 04:56 AM Re: About Science [Re: terrytnewzealand]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
1 ) before there was something there was nothing.

2 ) if a nothing can make a something is the question.

3 ) if not then there (((had))) to be a creator of the something.

4 ) if the created evolved after exposure to diverse environments
then that does not mean that we evolved from pond scum.

5 ) if the creator could create then why would he stop at
pond scum.
6 ) can you think of (((one))) or thousands of differences
that seperate humans from all other life forms on the earth.
7 ) why is it that no one on the earth has ever created
anything from nothing if it can be done.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#22104 - 06/15/07 05:14 AM Re: About Science [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
There are a lot of 'ifs' there, Paul. First, some thoughts on the first point:

"1) before there was something there was nothing"

True if there was a 'before', and on condition that there could be time without spatial content.
False if there wasn't a 'before', or if there was an infinite time 'before' that always contained something.

Maybe the very first "something" existed in the very first "time", in which case there would be no "before".

Alternatively, maybe there has always been something - maybe our universe arose from an infinite continuum that existed prior to the Big Bang.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#22110 - 06/15/07 02:26 PM Re: About Science [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
There are a lot of 'Maybe's' there, redewnur. First, some thoughts on your thoughts on my first point :

"True if there was a 'before'"

we know there is an after.
what we dont know is
a maybe.
a guess.
a theory.

"and on condition that there could be time without spatial content"

time does not exist.
it has no physical properties.

time is a word that is used for measurements.

like:
inch
centemeter
calorie
mole
newton , etc.

Maybe the very first "something" existed in the very first "word", in which case there would be no "before".

Alternatively, maybe there has always been something - maybe our universe arose from an infinite continuum that existed prior to the Big Bang.

infinite continuum

what a great description of GOD













_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#22111 - 06/15/07 02:41 PM Re: About Science [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

"1 ) before there was something there was nothing."
It could be that the entire question of "before" in reference to the Big Bang is meaningless.

"2 ) if a nothing can make a something is the question."
The question is so unspecific and presumptuous that it cannot be addressed.

"3 ) if not then there (((had))) to be a creator of the something."
Only if one attempts to address a loaded question with an answer that doesn't actually answer the question.

"4 ) if the created evolved after exposure to diverse environments then that does not mean that we evolved from pond scum."
That 'alone' is not sufficient to make the case. The entire concept of "creation" is outside scientific discourse.


"5 ) if the creator could create then why would he stop at
pond scum."
That question is utterly outside the realm of scientific investigation.


"6 ) can you think of (((one))) or thousands of differences
that seperate humans from all other life forms on the earth."
I can think of differences between cows and all other life forms on earth. That's why we call them 'cows'.


"7 ) why is it that no one on the earth has ever created
anything from nothing if it can be done. "

For thousands of years, mankind has aspired to flight and yet it has been only very recently that we came to figure out how exactly to do it. That we can't do something right this second is no indication that we will never be able to do it.

Top
#22112 - 06/15/07 02:46 PM Re: About Science [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Paul.

It's interesting, but it's into deep speculation and metaphysics, so why not open it in Not-Quite-Science?
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#22115 - 06/15/07 05:10 PM Re: About Science [Re: paul]
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: paul
1 ) before there was something there was nothing.


How do you know?

Quote:
2 ) if a nothing can make a something is the question.

3 ) if not then there (((had))) to be a creator of the something.


So then you're saying there was something before nothing.

Quote:
4 ) if the created evolved after exposure to diverse environments then that does not mean that we evolved from pond scum.


There must be a point here that I'm missing. Could you explain?

Quote:
5 ) if the creator could create then why would he stop at pond scum.


I don't know. Maybe that's all it could create?

Quote:
6 ) can you think of (((one))) or thousands of differences
that seperate humans from all other life forms on the earth.


I can think of many differences between any two forms of life.

Quote:
7 ) why is it that no one on the earth has ever created
anything from nothing if it can be done.


Because it's against the laws of nature, perhaps? Or well beyond our ability? I don't understand the point of that question.
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#22116 - 06/15/07 05:13 PM Re: About Science [Re: redewenur]
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Paul.

It's interesting, but it's into deep speculation and metaphysics, so why not open it in Not-Quite-Science?


I didn't have this opinion with the original post, but this thread has definitely taken a turn into the not quite science arena. If it continues, I hope the moderators move it over there.
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#22117 - 06/15/07 05:42 PM Re: About Science [Re: soilguy]
Tim Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/16/06
Posts: 192
Loc: California
Yes, this was not my intent to write a non-science post. I was trying to initiate a post which... challenged the minds of you, saying that we are not being taught true sciences in the schooles and as a result, we a) make false guesses about its premesises, and b) are being fed false information as scientific. This I can attest firsthand.

Top
#22126 - 06/15/07 10:02 PM Re: About Science [Re: Tim]
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Tim wrote:

"we a) make false guesses about its premesises, and b) are being fed false information as scientific. This I can attest firsthand."

Ok Tim. Go for it. Give us the examples.

Paul wrote:

"can you think of (((one))) or thousands of differences
that seperate humans from all other life forms on the earth."

I'll go for it. I reckon the main thing is our manipulation of fire.

Anyway there's no need to get into ancient origins. The evidence humans, chimpanzees and gorillas have all evolved from a single earlier species is indisputable. Feel free to argue over whether or not God was responsible for separating the three of us until the cows come home. I tend to think it was ecological conditions that did it.


Edited by terrytnewzealand (06/15/07 10:04 PM)

Top
#22134 - 06/16/07 01:25 AM Re: About Science [Re: terrytnewzealand]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
"So then you're saying there was something before nothing."

no Im saying there was GOD before there was something.

"I didn't have this opinion with the original post, but this thread has definitely taken a turn into the not quite science arena. If it continues, I hope the moderators move it over there. "

Thats right move it somewhere so that we can remain in the envelope of Main stream science.

"Yes, this was not my intent to write a non-science post. I was trying to initiate a post which... challenged the minds of you, saying that we are not being taught true sciences in the schools and as a result, we a) make false guesses about its premesises, and b) are being fed false information as scientific. This I can attest firsthand.
"

mainly as a result we are stagnated as far as technological advances are concerned.


"I'll go for it. I reckon the main thing is our manipulation of fire."

or that we can poot and think the aroma is that of perfume.











_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.