Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is science a religion?
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5266 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 94 of 295 (310791)
05-10-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by brianforbes
05-10-2006 2:59 PM


Raising hand..
brianforbes writes:
I predict that most on this thread will reject this statement because they have no trauma in their lives
The 'traumas' you speak of are as the falling of leaves compared to five years in a South American prison, getting stabbed and beaten on numerous ocassions, and nearly starving to death. And none of it changed my view of religions being all mythologies or what I would consider to be 'data'.
brianforbes writes:
...can't handle the introduction of non-physical data
... because it's NOT DATA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by brianforbes, posted 05-10-2006 2:59 PM brianforbes has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5266 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 97 of 295 (310795)
05-10-2006 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by brianforbes
05-10-2006 4:22 PM


Re: More of the same
brianforbes writes:
I need to have an unbiased source giving the data.
Please define criteria by you which you could determine, or at least be personally satisfied, that a source of data was 'unbiased' ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by brianforbes, posted 05-10-2006 4:22 PM brianforbes has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5266 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 125 of 295 (311024)
05-11-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Quetzal
05-11-2006 9:59 AM


The infamous goatsucker of Latin America
quetzal writes:
the remains of an animal - alleged to be a chupacabra
Ahhh. The elusive chupacabra. Nice little narrative. Reminds me of the six months I spent in Puerto Rico tromping through the hill country during which time there must have been at least a dozen sightings of the little vampire reported in the papers. Seems like he also had a taste for chickens, as I recall. I always had a camera at the ready, but no luck...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Quetzal, posted 05-11-2006 9:59 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Quetzal, posted 05-11-2006 2:36 PM EZscience has replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5266 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 128 of 295 (311060)
05-11-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Quetzal
05-11-2006 2:36 PM


Re: The infamous goatsucker of Latin America
Quetzal writes:
And don't forget to buy your chupacabra t-shirt!
I used to actually OWN one, but think it succumbed to the clothes-culling tendencies of my wife in her futile efforts to keep me tastefully dressed...
On my shirt it looked more like some kind of hybrid human-bat vampire with wings. This one is just a lousy dog with some spikes on its back. Couldn't possibly be the real thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Quetzal, posted 05-11-2006 2:36 PM Quetzal has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5266 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 217 of 295 (311699)
05-13-2006 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by brianforbes
05-13-2006 3:27 AM


Misunderstandings of bias
bf writes:
your...reaction is not, "Maybe we should scrap our current theory." That is BIAS!
No, actually, on many levels, scientists are repeatedly asking themselves exactly that question. As far as ToE, that is happening mostly on superficial levels and the theory is being constantly modified because of it, but in very fine-scaled applications to specific situations. At the deeper levels of the framework, there has been no reason to 'scrap' anything. In contrast, ID hasn't even produced a framework of anything that can even be tested, let alone explain anything.
You really haven't got a clue how science works, do you? You think scientists have some intrinsic bias to protect current theory? If anything, a scientist would like nothing better than an opportunity to alter and advance theory, and that can only be done by demonstrating an inconsistency with the current theory and explaining why it is inconcsistent. I suggest that you are merely accusing science of what you and all you 'believers' know you are guilty of yourselves.
EZ: You're biased.
bf: "No, you are"...
Really constructive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by brianforbes, posted 05-13-2006 3:27 AM brianforbes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by brianforbes, posted 05-14-2006 2:58 PM EZscience has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024