It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
No, mistakes aren't subjective in science because subjective evidence isn't permitted according to scientific method...read the link I posted.
As for mistakes of religions: global flood (never happened), talking snakes (lol), people surviving in whales (physically impossible), humans just popping up in their current form (demonstrably wrong), ....
Like I said, there's hundreds of examples.
And of course science and religion isn't mutually exclusive...it's just that there's ZERO objective evidence for creationism while science backs up its claims since they use scientific method.
Originally posted by centrifugal
Originally posted by MrXYZ
No, mistakes aren't subjective in science because subjective evidence isn't permitted according to scientific method...read the link I posted.
As for mistakes of religions: global flood (never happened), talking snakes (lol), people surviving in whales (physically impossible), humans just popping up in their current form (demonstrably wrong), ....
Like I said, there's hundreds of examples.
And of course science and religion isn't mutually exclusive...it's just that there's ZERO objective evidence for creationism while science backs up its claims since they use scientific method.
Objective reasoning is only possible without bias, so if you dismiss religion you are in contradiction to the scientific method. If you trust logic, then you have used intuition to acknowledge it's existence. It is your perception of the world, and regardless of how you solve a problem it is always subjective.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
You do realise that you first say "I never said that" just to then repeat EXACTLY what I'm accusing you of, right?
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
"The monkey doth protest too much, methinks."
A little too shrill for my taste, this "debate"..
What a waste of time and energy this was.
Originally posted by Serdgiam
Originally posted by MrXYZ
You do realise that you first say "I never said that" just to then repeat EXACTLY what I'm accusing you of, right?
In your limited understanding of my perspective, I can see how you would make these conclusions. I could clarify, but this is much more fun for me and you havent actually asked (making the assumption that you actually know the point of what I am saying). And it seems you feel your interpretation is already unbiased and objective as you attempt to educate me on my own perspective, eschewing the source of the data as inferior to your interpretation and understanding of it.
Do explain what my perspective is to me. I openly admit I am flawed and limited. I am not omniscient, so I like to ask for clarification.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Well, you clearly (as in: I quoted you) stated that unless you do your own experiments you can't know...which of course is NONSENSE
Originally posted by Serdgiam
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Well, you clearly (as in: I quoted you) stated that unless you do your own experiments you can't know...which of course is NONSENSE
Please do show me where I stated "unless you do your own experiments you can't know." I apologize for being dense. I struggle to find where I said that clearly and exactly and didnt say something that you interpreted through bias to mean something else. The "cant know" is the relevant part to me. I just cant find where I said that beyond your interpretation (do you even see what Im doing here?).
I am saying that if you dont do that, you are trusting others to do your exploration and explanation for you and have no ground to stand on when criticizing someone else for having "blind faith."
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by Serdgiam
I am saying that if you dont do that, you are trusting others to do your exploration and explanation for you and have no ground to stand on when criticizing someone else for having "blind faith."
You are essentially questioning the objectivity of scientific method...which is silly. Believing in a scientific theory that's fully backed up by objective evidence isn't the same as believing in fairytale creationism that has ZERO objective evidence behind it.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
There's more scientists with the name Steve (not Stephen, or Stephan, or any other form!) than scientists who disbelieve in evolution
And of course there's scientists that believe in creationism, but that doesn't mean they're right UNLESS they provide proof...which those guys you linked haven't. They merely state and OPINION that isn't based on facts.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Of course I stand up against argumentative fallacies and complete nonsense arguments that ignore facts (like the fact that the earth isn't a circle).
Originally posted by rwfresh
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by ibiubu
Most well known scientists (Newton, Bragg, others) believed in God and creation. What harm is there in educating children in this possibility? None, in my book.
Because if god is the answer, then it's the final answer. No reason to look any further. It stops all research.
We don't need to know about atoms and DNA because creationism gives us the final answer.
How did life get its start? God.
How was the universe created? God.
Where did morality come from? God.
How does the earth orbit the sun? God.
Who will free us from tyranny, save us from plagues, from injustice? God, God, God.
Problem: This answer solves nothing, serves no one, and protects no one. It shuts down human curiosity. Plus, it's simply the wrong answer.
No it doesn't stop it. It hasn't stopped. that is proof enough isn't it? What is God?