Was Darwin Wrong?
- Thread starter Lé.Skiing
- Start date
aggro_sk8
Active member
so, if you use epistemological proof to say nothing can be proven, how then do you prove epistemological proof. off subject i know, i just thought it was kind of interesting to think about
-Joe
______________________________________
'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if there wasn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'
Solider in the NS ARMY
Rollers of NS unite!!!
603 for life
I'm conservative, just so you all know.
Member Number: 5172
Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21
-Joe
______________________________________
'Really, I gotta say that I'm glad you exist, 'cause if there wasn't there'd be noone to make fun of and diss.'
Solider in the NS ARMY
Rollers of NS unite!!!
603 for life
I'm conservative, just so you all know.
Member Number: 5172
Golden Wheel Chair Award 2004-09-21
TAK
Active member
Well that's the whole thing, we can't prove anything like we once thought we could. Instead of having faith in the possibility of concrete ''proof'', we rather have to work through a dynamic mental process that requires complete intellectual responsibility. Truth becomes a tentative concept that can only be taken as if drawn by a police sketch artist, that is image in a see of images that is taken as truth because it is closest to unknowable metaphysical truth. Why is it taken as truth and not the others? Because, wether or not we acknowledge the concept as 'true', it is a superior meme.
-TAK, PPPhd
''Fuck gorilla; it's all about the penguin steeze.''
-Sdot, in reference to Tanner Hall's rather questionable atire and mental state
-TAK, PPPhd
''Fuck gorilla; it's all about the penguin steeze.''
-Sdot, in reference to Tanner Hall's rather questionable atire and mental state
Indecent_Composure
Member
Wow, too much to respond to really.
A few points while I should be studying
To play the scientific game you need to understand the rules.
You can’t prove a negative, which means that it is not up to science to disprove religion (you can‘t prove something doesn‘t exist) but it is up to religion to prove itself on scientific grounds.
But this has been known to be impossible for centuries.
Trying to give a religion a logical base is just plain wrong. It can not stand up to logical scrutiny. Believing in religion is fine, but you have to accept that it is a faith, and not try and give logical or rational grounds, because they simply do not exist. No religion, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Buhhism or Zoroastrianism can stand up to scientific scrutiny.
David Hume showed this nigh on 200 years ago. I would recommend his essay ‘Of Miracles’ if anyone is interested. This shows what a good scientific refutation should look like. You do not take the weakest examples of contrary argument, but the strongest, and you refute them on rational grounds.
To quote a famous passage in the conclusion: ‘Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such as trial as it is, by no means fitted to endure.’
“Scientific-creationism� is a misnomer; for believers it lacks falsifiability and is therefore not scientific; for scientists it is falsifiable, and has been proven false, and therefore is not science.
Evolution is a theory. But it is also a fact. Don’t confuse “natural selection� Darwin’s proposed! method! for evolution, with evolution itself. The debate in evolution is how it happened, not whether it exists. This is something creationists struggle with and regularly misrepresent.
Science is fallible, religion (fundamental anyway) is not. To the uninitiated that might suggest science is weaker, but this is by no means the case, science’s fallibility is perhaps its greatest strength.
What puzzles me, is that people who subscribe to different religions tend to simply presume the others wrong. This always seems to be an awfully big claim to make. I’m kind of interested in that, what is the creationists take on people of other religions? Hindu’s believe in many gods (polytheistic), and there are close to a billion hindus. Are they all wrong/sinners/stupid?
It honestly is not my intention here to offend or hurt anyone’s religious beliefs though I suspect I do will as a matter of course. But put simply, if you present pseudo-science as science you’re going to get rumbled.
Belief in religion is fine! But you have to accept it is a faith!!
A few points while I should be studying
To play the scientific game you need to understand the rules.
You can’t prove a negative, which means that it is not up to science to disprove religion (you can‘t prove something doesn‘t exist) but it is up to religion to prove itself on scientific grounds.
But this has been known to be impossible for centuries.
Trying to give a religion a logical base is just plain wrong. It can not stand up to logical scrutiny. Believing in religion is fine, but you have to accept that it is a faith, and not try and give logical or rational grounds, because they simply do not exist. No religion, be it Christianity, Hinduism, Buhhism or Zoroastrianism can stand up to scientific scrutiny.
David Hume showed this nigh on 200 years ago. I would recommend his essay ‘Of Miracles’ if anyone is interested. This shows what a good scientific refutation should look like. You do not take the weakest examples of contrary argument, but the strongest, and you refute them on rational grounds.
To quote a famous passage in the conclusion: ‘Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on reason; and it is a sure method of exposing it to put it to such as trial as it is, by no means fitted to endure.’
“Scientific-creationism� is a misnomer; for believers it lacks falsifiability and is therefore not scientific; for scientists it is falsifiable, and has been proven false, and therefore is not science.
Evolution is a theory. But it is also a fact. Don’t confuse “natural selection� Darwin’s proposed! method! for evolution, with evolution itself. The debate in evolution is how it happened, not whether it exists. This is something creationists struggle with and regularly misrepresent.
Science is fallible, religion (fundamental anyway) is not. To the uninitiated that might suggest science is weaker, but this is by no means the case, science’s fallibility is perhaps its greatest strength.
What puzzles me, is that people who subscribe to different religions tend to simply presume the others wrong. This always seems to be an awfully big claim to make. I’m kind of interested in that, what is the creationists take on people of other religions? Hindu’s believe in many gods (polytheistic), and there are close to a billion hindus. Are they all wrong/sinners/stupid?
It honestly is not my intention here to offend or hurt anyone’s religious beliefs though I suspect I do will as a matter of course. But put simply, if you present pseudo-science as science you’re going to get rumbled.
Belief in religion is fine! But you have to accept it is a faith!!
rsd
Active member
well, indecent_composure, in my faith, i have examined ALOT of religions and found that Protestantism (christian)is way more reasonable, fairer, loving, and peaceful than all religions. So for me, i know that my religion is better because i have been through each religion and found that it is 'right' for several reasons. but you are correct that people generally just say every religion is wrong because it isnt their religion. good point.
____________________________________________________________
'how vain is it to sit down and write, when you have not stood up to live'
-Andrew P
I was in the petting zoo, or as I like to call it, the touch me zoo this afternoon. All the animals were retarded. Some lady was breast feeding her baby on a bench nearby, an obvious signal. I sat down uncomfortably close to her and yawned my arm around her shoulder. In her attempt to squirm away, she dropped her baby on the ground. I pretended I was concerned for a second, then I punted it over the fence. She still didn't seem interested in me. Whatever.
____________________________________________________________
'how vain is it to sit down and write, when you have not stood up to live'
-Andrew P
I was in the petting zoo, or as I like to call it, the touch me zoo this afternoon. All the animals were retarded. Some lady was breast feeding her baby on a bench nearby, an obvious signal. I sat down uncomfortably close to her and yawned my arm around her shoulder. In her attempt to squirm away, she dropped her baby on the ground. I pretended I was concerned for a second, then I punted it over the fence. She still didn't seem interested in me. Whatever.
rsd
Active member
no trust me, i have half converted to these religions before i was able to find the flaws and pull myself back. But whatever, you make a very good point once again.
____________________________________________________________
'how vain is it to sit down and write, when you have not stood up to live'
-Andrew P
I was in the petting zoo, or as I like to call it, the touch me zoo this afternoon. All the animals were retarded. Some lady was breast feeding her baby on a bench nearby, an obvious signal. I sat down uncomfortably close to her and yawned my arm around her shoulder. In her attempt to squirm away, she dropped her baby on the ground. I pretended I was concerned for a second, then I punted it over the fence. She still didn't seem interested in me. Whatever.
____________________________________________________________
'how vain is it to sit down and write, when you have not stood up to live'
-Andrew P
I was in the petting zoo, or as I like to call it, the touch me zoo this afternoon. All the animals were retarded. Some lady was breast feeding her baby on a bench nearby, an obvious signal. I sat down uncomfortably close to her and yawned my arm around her shoulder. In her attempt to squirm away, she dropped her baby on the ground. I pretended I was concerned for a second, then I punted it over the fence. She still didn't seem interested in me. Whatever.
KootenayGuy
Active member
Darwin was WRONG! fossils are just neat little rocks that make neet shapes.
-STARMAN DIED IN VAIN!
-STARMAN DIED IN VAIN!
TAK
Active member
Interesting, then surely you know that righteousness (excuss my over use of this word) of a religion is not in its dogma, but rather its application and the effect it has on its believer. Considering how all religions are all very similar, that is that deny actions inspired by atavistic biological imparitives, then it is really only reagional culture that creates superfical difference between religions. And so, to each his own, as the final effect on a man who adopts it is the only reasonable method of passing judgement on any system of conviction.
-TAK, PPPhD
-TAK, PPPhD
