Science with meaning, symbol, and beauty, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 31-7-2008 @ 09:32 AM by dunwichwitch
Originally posted by Astyanax
I don't know what you mean by 'symbol and beauty', but science already has a purpose. Its purpose is to increase human knowledge. In order to achieve this purpose, it is necessary for scientists to seek explanations and truth in the phenomena they study rather than in some external, unrelated source such as a holy book, mystic revelation or even a philosophical argument.

The page you link to is the usual farrago of wishful thinking with a few isolated scientific factoids selectively quoted to support what the author is already determined to believe. It is a stunningly good example of what science is not.

I have only one question: what, if anything, has this subject to do with origins and creationism conspiracy? Quite clearly, it should be in
this forum.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Astyanax]



Unrelated? If there is an ORIGIN to our CREATION, it is obviously an intelligence, because nothing doesn't just become something with precise mathematical and physical dynamics if there wasn't a creative force MAKING IT so.

This is in the exact place it should be. God is not religious, my ignorant friend. Science will # you over when it's in the control of the elite, and not much has changed for thousands of years other than the illusion OF in order to fit the agenda OF...

Why is it that science fails to understand why, despite all of our "efforts" we keeping #ing the world into extinction? Could it be possibly because we see everything as just completely unrelated and based on a chance of....ZERO? Are we all essentially dead and pointless matter, you gull darn genius? If so, why don't we all #ing shoot ourselves then right in the HEAD, because there's obviously NO POINT, if we are to understand your brilliant statement here correctly?

Do you see my quabble with you?

[edit on 31-7-2008 by dunwichwitch]


reply posted on 31-7-2008 @ 11:47 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by dunwichwitch

Why is it that science fails to understand why, despite all of our "efforts" we keeping #ing the world into extinction?

What makes you think there are no scientific answers to this question? Or even commonsense ones? I mean, it isn't exactly a brain-buster, is it?

Could it be possibly because we see everything as just completely unrelated and based on a chance of....ZERO?

No, it's because we're animals, and all animals behave this way.

Are we all essentially dead and pointless matter, you gull darn genius?

I don't think I qualify for the compliment, but to answer your question, we are living, not dead matter. Until we're dead, of course.

If so, why don't we all #ing shoot ourselves then right in the HEAD, because there's obviously NO POINT, if we are to understand your brilliant statement here correctly?

I really don't see what has this to do with what I wrote earlier.

Do you see my quabble with you?

No. What on earth has my post got to do with Dunbar Oglethorpe?


reply posted on 1-8-2008 @ 12:13 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by Hollywood11

The article explains why the theory of evolution has become popular with scientists, because it fits with their atheistic worldview that the universe has no underlying meaning and the way it operates and the things that happen within it are random and just "the way it is".

You are telling a naughty little fib here. The article does not even mention the words 'evolve', 'evolution' or 'natural selection'. It mentions Darwin exactly once, and here is the reference:

A young anthropologist from Boston, Misia Landau, has convincingly maintained that all the theories on the descent of man (from Darwin to Leakey) were but versions of the universal hero tales in folklore and myth (as theorized by Vladimir Propp).

Absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about. And, in any case, utter tripe.

Ah, well...

Having participated in this forum for a while now, I am no longer surprised to find creationists telling untruths to support their feeble arguments. For some odd reason, though, I never cease to find it disgusting. And pathetic.

Everything that happens, happens for a reason. Atheistic scientists refuse to accept this simple fact however and believe in a "puposeless" and random universe.

Yes, let's give that battered old straw man another good going-over, shall we?

[edit on 1-8-2008 by Astyanax]


reply posted on 3-8-2008 @ 01:09 PM by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Astyanax



Ohh your soooo sensitive. Poor thing! It wasn't an insult as much as I was making excuses for your unfortunate predicament. I know you can't help it. The devil make you do it... literally.



reply posted on 8-8-2008 @ 07:26 AM by Heronumber0
I am sure that Bigwhammy has covered all the bases here in his excellent posts. However, you are stating that Science has a monopoly on the 'truth' and it does not. The hypothetico-deductive method (Popperian method) can find probabilities because Greek philosophers put paid to the possibility of the existence of Absolute Truth.

Science can theorise and deduce and point to homologies and differences between phenomena then formulate a Law that will unite the phenomena. For example the measured speed of light generally seems to be constant by measurements and it is regarded as a Physical constant but...we are assuming that a chaotic disordered Universe in its infancy then suddenly spewed out by complete accident a set of Universal Laws without which the chances of life were ZERO.

Then, we have to believe that the disordered processes on Earth led to the formation of complex molecules in DNA and RNA called nucleotides. Then these nucleotides found a theoretical way to bind together which seems to be energetically unfavourable. Then these made a template for enzymes which made proteins and through the high rate of genetic mutation made a number of proteins. Unlikely events!

Then, the proteins collected together to make proto-cells and then collected together to make tissues, organs and living organisms. Then the living organisms collected togehter in food chains and food webs to ensure the survival of species in the correct biotic and abiotic environments.

So you atheists hate to think of origins of living things by God and dismiss it as magic, yet you believe in the 'better' theory of the chance of huge accident x huge accident x huge accident x huge coincidence.....and so on... And you have the guts to call theistic belief 'magic?'


reply posted on 8-8-2008 @ 11:23 AM by dave420
reply to post by Heronumber0



Nope. Science is the search for knowledge. Religion is the search for agreement with your views. That's it. When a scientist uses logic and reason to revolt against a standing theory, it's business as usual. When a religious person does that, it's deemed subversive. Nice.

Science doesn't have a monopoly on truth, but it is a way to get to the truth. Religion doesn't have any goals to establish truth, just to concoct a feel-good story to keep people in check. If you find truth through religion, it was a fluke.

[edit on 8/8/08 by dave420]
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
The Genesis Code
  Posted 8 days ago with 4 member flags
Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 9 days ago with 3 member flags
Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 4 days ago with 3 member flags
The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 3 days ago with 3 member flags
A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 10 days ago with 2 member flags
Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 4 days ago with 2 member flags
We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 3 days ago with 2 member flags