/.
Heh, thought this was interesting. Take that, idiots!

lol *****

EDIT - I can't say *****? What the ****ing kind of **** operation gay ****G* is going on ****?!!/

Haha, some people still believe in bedtime stories.

It could be compatible... I can think of much more logically sound theories than either of them. That, of course, doesn’t mean that they are true.

I doubt science will ever be able to fully tell what happened. The more you know, the more you realize how little you know. I believe Intelligent design, but I'm not really educated on the subject and I'm certainly not going to get into some stupid flame war about something man hasn't even begun to understand.

But really, how does "what the pope says" have any bearing on what Christianity believes.

Hehehe, from the /. comments:



<3

Yeah, you go ahead and reenforce your silly theist beliefs with that.

Creationism is completely compatable with Evolution. The past Pope held this view for years. The argument is that they both describe a single point in time at the beginning of the universe; Creationism deals with the nature of that beginning and Evolution expresses the time from then till now. Even though I don't believe in this combination, I'm down with the Vatican and it's opinion that, within a religious and scientific text, is logical.

Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience created in response to the teaching of Evolution in public schools and is not related to the Catholic Church's position. It is, simply, scientifically and theologically, gay.

pwned

First, lay off calling things gay. That's silly.

Anyway, what about the whole origin of man? Evolution states that people evolved from similar organisms over long periods of time, creationism stated we were just, well, created from a designer. How could one talk about evolution of living things but ignore its statements of how we came to be?

The Church has held this view since the '60s. Of course they're not going to subscribe to some psuedoscience mashed together by American Fundies.

Down through the centuries people have always assumed that that their science was correct, and that further science would only continue to build on it. In fifty years we'll laugh at some of the think we thought now, just as now we laugh at some of the things we thought fifty years ago. If you think science will give you philosophical truth, your barking up the wrong tree.

Okay this thread is pretty silly in general but I'd like to point out that people who say that are sort of like those people who are always following someone else around and think they're friends with that person even though that person doesn't really like them very much. You know those sorts of people? I do. :p

And, yes, stop calling things gay or we'll send you to jail.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Science has always been growing and taking steps to reach new grounds. Science discovers new things, new ideas and new principles. So why would someone laugh at what science was fifty years ago? It has become much more developed now than in the past.

And what is the "philosophical truth?"

Intelligent design is hilarious.

Instead of GOD created all that you see, it's *BLANK* created all that you see!

That REALLY does belong in a scientific discussion!

It's not specific enough to appease the church. That doesn't come as a suprise to me.

I bet the person who came up with it to get god back into science is hanging himself right now!

No, according to his "intelligent falling" theory, that wouldn't work.

>.>

What theories are 50 years old that we laugh at today? For the most part we have built on those theories. As our scientific knowledge expands and develops, it becomes closer to the truth. Yes, fifty years from now there will be new theories about astrophysics, but our current theories will not be laughed at. Newton's theories about physics and calculus are over 400 years old yet are still scientific law. You are ignoring the fact that, as we expand our knowledge, we are becoming closer to understanding the universe. Every day we learn something new, yesterday's ideas become less and less "incorrect." Again, more dribble to support your thiest beliefs.

You lose all credibility.

Yeah, a fall so good can't possibly be natural. Someone needs to push him.

ID is The Big Bang with god's name stapled on. I hate ID, because it isn't even an argument for god, it's just the slow realization that God isn't real. "We need an explenation that is a little more believable this century guys: People are starting to catch on to reality."

I still stand by my viewpoint. Append something about God to a scientific fact, or append a scientific fact to something about God, and suddenly you have something that seems to work.

I was just j/k about Intelligent Design being gay. However I definitely do not agree with it's premises. A more serious word would have been "illogical".

Well, the Vatican is wrong. Everyone, deep down, knows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life, beginning with the trees, and the mountain, and the midget.

In our own way, we've all been touched by his noodly appendage.

Creationism and Evolution are semi-compatible.

God made the universe through scientific means. He is, after all, the greatest scientist. He then 'created' (wether or not you think he threw some dirt together or they are his literal children is up to you) Adam and Eve, after getting all those other critters out from little floating blobs.

Humans evolve within a species, while other animals can evolve into new species.

Simple. Of course, that's one way of looking at it. Equally as preposterous as a spontaneous universe, or a 'magic' universe.

What theory or belief is behind this idea?

Once upon a time, God created monkeys.
Then one day, humans evolved from monkeys.
So it turns out that God created us through evolution, and everyone is happy.
The end.

Science works more like this: First some people tried to think of a way to explain the world. Every one accepted it. Then some other people else comes along and said, "The other guys were idiots. It's this way. Then people laughed, and some times, for political or religious reasons, abuse the poor guys who noticed that the previous guys were wrong. Well, eventually everyone realized that the second guys were right, and everyone believed them, and idolized them, which did them no good because by now they were dead. Then someone noticed that the second guy was wrong and the process was repeated.

Everyone thought that current science theory is all correct and future discoverys would only expound on current theory. Usually they were wrong. A few hundred years ago there was a slight lull in the idiocy and scientific progress leaped foreword. People became educated, stopped philosophizing, started playing with math and science, and generally said “Who cares? What’s for lunch?” every time they started to think about things like, “Why do I exist?” or “Why do I exist ?” Then someone invented TV, and 90% present of the population stopped caring about even science, and generally brewed massive amounts of stupidity for 50 years, while working in unnecessary management layers.

About ten years ago, some actual scientists managed to get a brilliant idea past the 47 layers of management. The Internet, vast net work of computers to educate, and aid in scientific progress. The Internet helped the scientific community enormously. Unfortunately, one of the managers found out that browsing the internet was a good way to look like you were busy. It caught on. Other people discovered it too. Suddenly all the pent up idiocy was released. Ordinary people could voice their stupid opinions. They found that their opinions were differed and began to debate for the first time in over a hundred years. Over that time, however, they had lost their use of reason. So, to make due, they used raw emotion and a few incoherent factoids they heard on some documentaries while flipping through channels. Philosophy was, in a horribly mutilated form, rediscovered. But since emotion won out over logic, people spent only five minutes philosophizing, and their entire lives arguing from that philosophy. At about 2050, the idiots who had been elected by their moronic constituency got into a flame war and nuked each other. The few people left formed a stone age society and in a few generations forgot the high tech society. Then some people tried to come up with a way to explain the world around them and why it was there.


Hmm. It appears I've gotten off on a bit of a tangent. Oh well...

Fundamentalist creationism is willful ignorance as far as I'm concerned.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE.

Humans did not evolve from MONKEYS OR APES. WE EVOLVED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR.

Nice spiel Obi, but it's beside the point. It's pretty much irrelevant. The point you were asked to address was:



You sort of did, for a second... However your argument is a tad flawed. Scientific progress does not work like you suggest. We don't have group A suggesting that X is true, and everyone accepting it until group B comes along and says 'X is garbage!'. Repeat. A new scientific theory needs to have, if it is to be accepted, some decent supporting evidence. There's enough competition and accountability to guarantee that no one is going to get away with publishing nonsense, much less getting a population to accept and believe it. If a wild, new, revolutionary theory comes along that disproves some traditionally accepted understanding of the universe, it will not be immediately accepted, nor will it be immediately denounced, by rational individuals. It will be analyzed, retested, and added to the pool of scientific knowledge.

The scientific method isn't about creating wild theories that replace the old ones until new, seemingly better wild theories come along. It's about using a logical process to refine knowledge of nature and adding on to previous knowledge. There are exceptions to the following, but in as global and interconnected of a society as we live in (worldwide), new breakthroughs DO compound on current theory.

Your points about 'layers of management' may be valid, but it has little to do with scientific progress. Layers of bureaucracy can't totally halt or muddle this progress... or at least they have not yet.

I'm very sorry, but nothing provokes me more than a creationist on CNN saying that "The Bible is right, Science is wrong, Jesus spoke English, and Scientist have no proof. lol" while shaking their heads mockingly.

Then I found a compromise.

Maybe offencive?

Science is about expanding our knowledge of the world (and universe) around us through observation and reasoning. I would like to see some evidence of this "cycle" you wrote of. You act as if there have been hundreds of proven and consequently disproven theories throughout the past few hundred years.

You seem to be reducing science to a level of idiocy where one party is intent on disproving the other and vice versa. And quite frankly, it's starting to piss me off, since you haven't a damn clue as to what you're talking about. As I keep pointing out, the closer scientific knowledge comes to the truth, the less likely its theories are to be disproven. If you had some theory X, let's call it, that perfectly described everything we could observe in the universe, what are the chances of it being disproven? Science aims to explain, and the more you can explain, the less there is to disprove.

Religion is based upon faith. It is nothing more than an irrational way of explaining what you see around you in order to answer questions and put your mind at ease. Science aims to explain instead of just believe, and as science develops, religion becomes more and more threatened. I would not be suprised of most of the world's religions are completely gone within a few hundred years.

<3


Obi_Kwiet: You're wrong, game over.

Evolution is crazy from the beggining. If there was a big bang, something was there to make the bang. Something had to be made from something which also had to be made from something. So, what came first is sort of impossible to find out truely. But all this physical stuff didnt just go BANG and appear. If it did, something that is NOT physical had to have created it. Simple logic, eh?

Or we could turn to Humes and Berkeley, who posited that since there was a complete lack of objective external empirical proof for an external reality, that there wasn't an external reality after all.

Humes took it one step further and disproved the existence of the self and the mind while he was at it.

Berkeley on the other hand took the position [being a cardinal], that since god is a non-contingent being in philosophical terms, that is he contains sufficient cause for his own existence and doesn't require an external creator, that anything that existed actually was contained as ideas in the mind of god. This neatly side-stepped Leibniz' "Pourquoi i'l ya plutot, quelque chose que rien" [why is there something instead of nothing?], because one no longer had to explain the existence of anything beyond the non-causal extant nature of Berkeley's god.

We could abstract on that a step further, and suppose that pre-modern species are something like memory artefacts or screen burn-in in god's mind, and that modern man was the result of a series of progressively better ideas.


Or we could sit back and appreciate the link that Annie introduced to the topic as the new canon, while meanwhile basking in the saucey glow of His Noodly Presence.


Although I can't resist throwing in a few laughable old scientific theories, to try to cover for the lack presented by the guy who first brought it up.
- Phlogesten [the element fire is made of]
- Spontaneous Generation [eg that maggots are created from rotting meat, and tadpoles from raindrops]

Duh. It wasn't even serious. I can't belive you thought it was a serious argument.

How am I wrong if I didn't even state an openion?

That looked pretty serious to me.