Tejomay Bharat- My a**
-
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.
-
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:
Except for the fact that every reason you gave for why you feel I don't understand it was pure rubbish.
As you have repeatedly stated, you feel that scientific theories are just a belief system with no supporting evidence. As anyone with half a brain could discover with 10 minutes of research, that's utter nonsense. Therefore, one of two things is true: either you don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context; or you're deliberately posting ludicrous statements in an attempt to troll this forum. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former explanation was correct. Am I wrong?
RyanDev wrote:
Totally off topic but I'll bite. Who is trying to teach religion in science?
Did you even read the link from the first message in this thread?
42,000 Schools in India Will Soon Teach That Stem Cell Research, Cars, and TVs Were Inspired by Ancient Texts[^]
Published by the Gujarat State School Textbook Board (GSSTB), the book seeks to teach children "facts" about history, science, geography, religion and other "basics".
The "facts" in this book all state that various scientific discoveries were based on religious teachings rather than science.
RyanDev wrote:
I know. I mentioned it. Did you miss that somehow?
No, I didn't miss your blatant attempt to derail this conversation by pretending that I'd said something that I didn't.
RyanDev wrote:
I've never heard anyone try to claim they were.
You obviously don't listen to yourself.
RyanDev wrote:
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.
Ad-hominem attacks now? What a surprise. X|
-
RyanDev wrote:
Except for the fact that every reason you gave for why you feel I don't understand it was pure rubbish.
As you have repeatedly stated, you feel that scientific theories are just a belief system with no supporting evidence. As anyone with half a brain could discover with 10 minutes of research, that's utter nonsense. Therefore, one of two things is true: either you don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context; or you're deliberately posting ludicrous statements in an attempt to troll this forum. I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former explanation was correct. Am I wrong?
RyanDev wrote:
Totally off topic but I'll bite. Who is trying to teach religion in science?
Did you even read the link from the first message in this thread?
42,000 Schools in India Will Soon Teach That Stem Cell Research, Cars, and TVs Were Inspired by Ancient Texts[^]
Published by the Gujarat State School Textbook Board (GSSTB), the book seeks to teach children "facts" about history, science, geography, religion and other "basics".
The "facts" in this book all state that various scientific discoveries were based on religious teachings rather than science.
RyanDev wrote:
I know. I mentioned it. Did you miss that somehow?
No, I didn't miss your blatant attempt to derail this conversation by pretending that I'd said something that I didn't.
RyanDev wrote:
I've never heard anyone try to claim they were.
You obviously don't listen to yourself.
RyanDev wrote:
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.
Ad-hominem attacks now? What a surprise. X|
Richard Deeming wrote:
As you have repeatedly stated, you feel that scientific theories are just a belief system with no supporting evidence.
I've never said that. :zzz:
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
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.
RyanDev wrote:
You're saying I think there is no evidence to support creationism or to support evolution? ... You keep making things up.
Making things up? :mad:
RyanDev wrote:
Creationism has as much evidence to support it as Darwin's theory.
That is a direct quote from your previous post. Are you going to deny that you wrote that? And since creationism has precisely zero scientific evidence to support it, then you're clearly claiming that Darwin's theory of natural selection also has no supporting scientific evidence.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
As you have repeatedly stated, you feel that scientific theories are just a belief system with no supporting evidence.
I've never said that. :zzz:
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
OK, fine. I'll revise my former opinion, and assume that you are a troll.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
You're saying I think there is no evidence to support creationism or to support evolution? ... You keep making things up.
Making things up? :mad:
RyanDev wrote:
Creationism has as much evidence to support it as Darwin's theory.
That is a direct quote from your previous post. Are you going to deny that you wrote that? And since creationism has precisely zero scientific evidence to support it, then you're clearly claiming that Darwin's theory of natural selection also has no supporting scientific evidence.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
OK, fine. I'll revise my former opinion, and assume that you are a troll.
"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 since creationism has precisely zero scientific evidence to support it,
Oh dear. :rolleyes:
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Go on then; I'll bite. What rigorous scientific evidence do you have to support your medieval creation story?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Go on then; I'll bite. What rigorous scientific evidence do you have to support your medieval creation story?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
What rigorous scientific evidence do you have to support your medieval creation story?
Troll.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
OK, if you don't like the word referring to the Middle Ages: What rigorous scientific evidence do you have to support your ancient / archaic / Stone-Age / really bloody old (delete as appropriate) creation story? And, indeed, which creation story[^] do you support?
"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.
-
OK, if you don't like the word referring to the Middle Ages: What rigorous scientific evidence do you have to support your ancient / archaic / Stone-Age / really bloody old (delete as appropriate) creation story? And, indeed, which creation story[^] do you support?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
not worth it - Ryan believes fossils were planted by some alien and all humans lived on another planet before deciding to pop down to Earth (I apologise unreservedly if I have misunderstood his previous posts). he argues that because you can't prove something to be untrue, it's reasonable to believe it Next he'll be saying that VB 6 is a great programming language and Silverlight is the way of the future!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
-
Quote:
where fiction is taught as fact and mythical beliefs override what academic scholars say.
We've always taught scientific theories in school. There's a reason theories are still theories, they aren't facts, at least not as far as we know.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
they aren't facts, at least not as far as we know.
You actually have that the wrong way around. A scientific theory is a fact as far as we know. In fact, that's a very good, succinct, definition of a scientific theory!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
