Tejomay Bharat- My a**
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
Everyone who claims that a scientific theory is "just a theory", and thereby equates the word with "guess".
Nope. You did that. I don't.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Maybe I've misinterpreted your comment. So you weren't suggesting that, because we teach scientific theories in schools, we shouldn't object to people teaching religion in the science lessons?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Maybe I've misinterpreted your comment. So you weren't suggesting that, because we teach scientific theories in schools, we shouldn't object to people teaching religion in the science lessons?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
we shouldn't object to people teaching religion in the science lessons?
No, that's not what I was saying. Let's see if I can reword it a bit. "Scientific" people are upset when "religious" beliefs are taught in school "where fiction is taught as fact." That last bit is a quote from the article. 1. You can't prove the religious beliefs are fiction so that's just silly. But I digress. 2. You can't get upset over someone teaching their beliefs when science is doing the same thing. Teaching things as fact that are not actually proven facts. It's hypocritical.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
we shouldn't object to people teaching religion in the science lessons?
No, that's not what I was saying. Let's see if I can reword it a bit. "Scientific" people are upset when "religious" beliefs are taught in school "where fiction is taught as fact." That last bit is a quote from the article. 1. You can't prove the religious beliefs are fiction so that's just silly. But I digress. 2. You can't get upset over someone teaching their beliefs when science is doing the same thing. Teaching things as fact that are not actually proven facts. It's hypocritical.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
At least science is not hijacking religion or teaching things without substantial evidence or proof.
The master of the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which; he simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him he is always doing both.
-
At least science is not hijacking religion or teaching things without substantial evidence or proof.
The master of the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which; he simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him he is always doing both.
stib_markc wrote:
At least science is not hijacking religion or teaching things without substantial evidence or proof.
I have no issues with science. I love science. I do have issues with people who think it is perfect and will only believe something so long as science tells them to.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
stib_markc wrote:
At least science is not hijacking religion or teaching things without substantial evidence or proof.
I have no issues with science. I love science. I do have issues with people who think it is perfect and will only believe something so long as science tells them to.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Check this[^]. The history is being re-written, thanks to Mr.Dinanath Batra, his qualification being an ace zealot.
The master of the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which; he simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him he is always doing both.
-
stib_markc wrote:
At least science is not hijacking religion or teaching things without substantial evidence or proof.
I have no issues with science. I love science. I do have issues with people who think it is perfect and will only believe something so long as science tells them to.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Quote:
I do have issues with people who think it is perfect and will only believe something so long as science tells them to.
So you welcome teachings of creationism in the science class as an alternative possibility to Darwin's theory of evolution?
The master of the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which; he simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him he is always doing both.
-
Quote:
I do have issues with people who think it is perfect and will only believe something so long as science tells them to.
So you welcome teachings of creationism in the science class as an alternative possibility to Darwin's theory of evolution?
The master of the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which; he simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him he is always doing both.
stib_markc wrote:
So you welcome teachings of creationism in the science class as an alternative possibility to Darwin's theory of evolution?
Creationism has as much evidence to support it as Darwin's theory.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
we shouldn't object to people teaching religion in the science lessons?
No, that's not what I was saying. Let's see if I can reword it a bit. "Scientific" people are upset when "religious" beliefs are taught in school "where fiction is taught as fact." That last bit is a quote from the article. 1. You can't prove the religious beliefs are fiction so that's just silly. But I digress. 2. You can't get upset over someone teaching their beliefs when science is doing the same thing. Teaching things as fact that are not actually proven facts. It's hypocritical.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
In cases like this I like to quote a couple of lines from the great beat poem of Tim Minchin which is called storm: ...
Storm:
You're so sure of your position But you're just closed-minded I think you'll find Your faith in Science and Tests Is just as blind As the faith of any fundamentalist
Tim:
Hm that's a good point, let me think for a bit Oh wait, my mistake, it's absolute bullshit. Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved. If you show me That, say, homeopathy works, Then I will change my mind I'll spin on a fucking dime I'll be embarrassed as hell, But I will run through the streets yelling It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it! You show me that it works and how it works And when I've recovered from the shock I will take a compass and carve "Fancy That!" on the side of my cock.
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
-
In cases like this I like to quote a couple of lines from the great beat poem of Tim Minchin which is called storm: ...
Storm:
You're so sure of your position But you're just closed-minded I think you'll find Your faith in Science and Tests Is just as blind As the faith of any fundamentalist
Tim:
Hm that's a good point, let me think for a bit Oh wait, my mistake, it's absolute bullshit. Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved. If you show me That, say, homeopathy works, Then I will change my mind I'll spin on a fucking dime I'll be embarrassed as hell, But I will run through the streets yelling It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And while it's memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it! You show me that it works and how it works And when I've recovered from the shock I will take a compass and carve "Fancy That!" on the side of my cock.
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
Manfred R. Bihy wrote:
Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
True. But many people still have a blind faith in it. So?
Manfred R. Bihy wrote:
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
No, that's not the definition of faith. :doh:
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
we shouldn't object to people teaching religion in the science lessons?
No, that's not what I was saying. Let's see if I can reword it a bit. "Scientific" people are upset when "religious" beliefs are taught in school "where fiction is taught as fact." That last bit is a quote from the article. 1. You can't prove the religious beliefs are fiction so that's just silly. But I digress. 2. You can't get upset over someone teaching their beliefs when science is doing the same thing. Teaching things as fact that are not actually proven facts. It's hypocritical.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
You can't prove the religious beliefs are fiction
And you can't prove that they're not fiction. The burden of proof rests with the person making the extraordinary claims; it's not up to everyone else to prove them wrong.
RyanDev wrote:
You can't get upset over someone teaching their beliefs when science is doing the same thing. Teaching things as fact that are not actually proven facts.
So I come back to my original comment: You still don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. First, as you've repeatedly pointed out, science doesn't teach things as "facts"; it teaches things as "theories". Second, those "theories" are not guesses. They're not based on how someone feels. They're not based on a medieval philosophy/magic book. They're based on hard evidence and a lot of investigation. And third - and perhaps most importantly - when was the last time you saw a group of scientists campaigning to have science taught in churches, temples and mosques? If they tried that, there would be a massive outcry from the religious community, quite possibly accompanied by death-threats. But somehow, when religious people campaign to have their unfounded, unproven dogma taught in science lessons, we're supposed to just put up with it and not complain? That's real hypocrisy. :suss: Based on our previous exchanges, I don't expect you to understand any of that. You'll continue to insist that "science is a religion", and that knowledge based on feelings and ancient fairy-tales is at least as good as knowledge based on logic and reason. I'll continue to point out that it's not, and we'll just go round in circles until one of us gets fed up and stops responding, or until the hamsters give us both a slap for breaking the "no religion" rule.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
stib_markc wrote:
So you welcome teachings of creationism in the science class as an alternative possibility to Darwin's theory of evolution?
Creationism has as much evidence to support it as Darwin's theory.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Creationism has as much evidence to support it as Darwin's theory.
Utter bollocks: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html[^] Still not convinced? Find your argument, click on the link, and read why you're wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
You can't prove the religious beliefs are fiction
And you can't prove that they're not fiction. The burden of proof rests with the person making the extraordinary claims; it's not up to everyone else to prove them wrong.
RyanDev wrote:
You can't get upset over someone teaching their beliefs when science is doing the same thing. Teaching things as fact that are not actually proven facts.
So I come back to my original comment: You still don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. First, as you've repeatedly pointed out, science doesn't teach things as "facts"; it teaches things as "theories". Second, those "theories" are not guesses. They're not based on how someone feels. They're not based on a medieval philosophy/magic book. They're based on hard evidence and a lot of investigation. And third - and perhaps most importantly - when was the last time you saw a group of scientists campaigning to have science taught in churches, temples and mosques? If they tried that, there would be a massive outcry from the religious community, quite possibly accompanied by death-threats. But somehow, when religious people campaign to have their unfounded, unproven dogma taught in science lessons, we're supposed to just put up with it and not complain? That's real hypocrisy. :suss: Based on our previous exchanges, I don't expect you to understand any of that. You'll continue to insist that "science is a religion", and that knowledge based on feelings and ancient fairy-tales is at least as good as knowledge based on logic and reason. I'll continue to point out that it's not, and we'll just go round in circles until one of us gets fed up and stops responding, or until the hamsters give us both a slap for breaking the "no religion" rule.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
And you can't prove that they're not fiction. The burden of proof rests with the person making the extraordinary claims; it's not up to everyone else to prove them wrong.
Yes, everyone knows this. :^)
Richard Deeming wrote:
You still don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.
Why do you say that?
Richard Deeming wrote:
Second, those "theories" are not guesses
Who's claiming they are? :confused: Are you responding to someone else's thread perhaps?
Richard Deeming wrote:
when was the last time you saw a group of scientists campaigning to have science taught in churches, temples and mosques?
1. Why would they? As far as I know churches teach about God and about how to love and serve one another. What does science have to do with any of that? 2. Science is taught in church schools. :doh:
Richard Deeming wrote:
, I don't expect you to understand any of that.
You got this part right. I have no clue what you are going on about.
Richard Deeming wrote:
that knowledge based on feelings and ancient fairy-tales is at least as good as knowledge based on logic and reason.
You enjoy making things up?
Richard Deeming wrote:
give us both a slap for breaking the "no religion" rule.
This is the Soapbox where you CAN discuss religion. But I have no idea what you are going on about. Most of what you said made no sense.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
RyanDev wrote:
Creationism has as much evidence to support it as Darwin's theory.
Utter bollocks: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html[^] Still not convinced? Find your argument, click on the link, and read why you're wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Sure it does. Where the Darwin theory has no answer is how did life get started. It picks up at the point of there being life but how did life get started. Can you answer that?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
And you can't prove that they're not fiction. The burden of proof rests with the person making the extraordinary claims; it's not up to everyone else to prove them wrong.
Yes, everyone knows this. :^)
Richard Deeming wrote:
You still don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context.
Why do you say that?
Richard Deeming wrote:
Second, those "theories" are not guesses
Who's claiming they are? :confused: Are you responding to someone else's thread perhaps?
Richard Deeming wrote:
when was the last time you saw a group of scientists campaigning to have science taught in churches, temples and mosques?
1. Why would they? As far as I know churches teach about God and about how to love and serve one another. What does science have to do with any of that? 2. Science is taught in church schools. :doh:
Richard Deeming wrote:
, I don't expect you to understand any of that.
You got this part right. I have no clue what you are going on about.
Richard Deeming wrote:
that knowledge based on feelings and ancient fairy-tales is at least as good as knowledge based on logic and reason.
You enjoy making things up?
Richard Deeming wrote:
give us both a slap for breaking the "no religion" rule.
This is the Soapbox where you CAN discuss religion. But I have no idea what you are going on about. Most of what you said made no sense.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Why do you say that?
Because you've made it quite clear that you don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Who's claiming they are? :confused: Are you responding to someone else's thread perhaps?
RyanDev wrote:
You can't get upset over someone teaching their beliefs when science is doing the same thing.
That would be you then.
RyanDev wrote:
Why would they?
You're missing the point. Science isn't taught in church, so why should anyone put up with attempts to teach religion in a science lesson?
RyanDev wrote:
Science is taught in church schools.
The key word there being "schools". If you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd have noticed that I made no mention of church schools.
RyanDev wrote:
You enjoy making things up?
I'm not the one who's trying to argue that science and religion are the same thing.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Sure it does. Where the Darwin theory has no answer is how did life get started. It picks up at the point of there being life but how did life get started. Can you answer that?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
how did life get started. Can you answer that?
No, I can't. And it's a very good question. However, "god done it" is not an answer. It's a cop-out.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
Why do you say that?
Because you've made it quite clear that you don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Who's claiming they are? :confused: Are you responding to someone else's thread perhaps?
RyanDev wrote:
You can't get upset over someone teaching their beliefs when science is doing the same thing.
That would be you then.
RyanDev wrote:
Why would they?
You're missing the point. Science isn't taught in church, so why should anyone put up with attempts to teach religion in a science lesson?
RyanDev wrote:
Science is taught in church schools.
The key word there being "schools". If you'd actually read what I wrote, you'd have noticed that I made no mention of church schools.
RyanDev wrote:
You enjoy making things up?
I'm not the one who's trying to argue that science and religion are the same thing.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
Because you've made it quite clear that you don't.
Except for the fact that every reason you gave for why you feel I don't understand it was pure rubbish. So, do you have anything else?
Richard Deeming wrote:
Science isn't taught in church, so why should anyone put up with attempts to teach religion in a science lesson?
Totally off topic but I'll bite. Who is trying to teach religion in science?
Richard Deeming wrote:
you'd have noticed that I made no mention of church schools.
I know. I mentioned it. Did you miss that somehow?
Richard Deeming wrote:
I'm not the one who's trying to argue that science and religion are the same thing.
OK. :^) I've never heard anyone try to claim they were. So, do you have any points or are you just going to keep showing how you don't have a clue about anything I say? Your bigotry is starting to show through. You make false claims about what I said or what I believe. Or perhaps just a troll? :^)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
RyanDev wrote:
how did life get started. Can you answer that?
No, I can't. And it's a very good question. However, "god done it" is not an answer. It's a cop-out.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
No, I can't. And it's a very good question.
Then you prove my point.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Then you prove my point.
How? :confused: As I read it, your point was that "creationism and evolution have the same amount of evidence" (ie: none). I pointed you to one of many links discussing the evidence supporting evolution. You responded by asking me whether evolution could answer a question which it doesn't even attempt to answer. How does that then prove that the evidence for evolution doesn't exist?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
Then you prove my point.
How? :confused: As I read it, your point was that "creationism and evolution have the same amount of evidence" (ie: none). I pointed you to one of many links discussing the evidence supporting evolution. You responded by asking me whether evolution could answer a question which it doesn't even attempt to answer. How does that then prove that the evidence for evolution doesn't exist?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
"creationism and evolution have the same amount of evidence" (ie: none).
What? You're saying I think there is no evidence to support creationism or to support evolution? OK. I'm done with you. You keep making things up. It's impossible to get anywhere with you because I constantly have to keep correcting your viewpoints about me.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
