Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News1 min ago
A ttheory.......
128 Answers
ok bare with me I don't even know if this makes sense....
Key plus always argues that islam is more 'correct' than Christianity-as in less flaws and loopholes...
And I also think Islam is younger than Christianity?
well does it follow then that the most complete religion should be scientology........does it follow that the younger the religion the more 'correct' they are?
Just the ramblings of a mad man bored whilst eating my Branflakes this morning!!!
Key plus always argues that islam is more 'correct' than Christianity-as in less flaws and loopholes...
And I also think Islam is younger than Christianity?
well does it follow then that the most complete religion should be scientology........does it follow that the younger the religion the more 'correct' they are?
Just the ramblings of a mad man bored whilst eating my Branflakes this morning!!!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sherminator. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
"Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
Scientists don't come an awful lot more famous than Steven J Gould.
"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
Scientists don't come an awful lot more famous than Steven J Gould.
The only Steven J Gould I could found is a fiction writer, so perhaps that is what you believe in.
http://berkeley.edu/n...05/06/17_townes.shtml
This Nobel prize winner almost thinks as I do.
http://berkeley.edu/n...05/06/17_townes.shtml
But there are big names of the past in this list who think differently.
http://www.cartage.or...rwinism/Darwinism.htm
Lazy – Your long list about what science has done for humanity is interesting. Where I do not dispute all that shall we say that scientist also developed drugs that many people abuse in the world. Or shall we blame the abusers only for that? How Muhammad has helped poor? Well whatever he did 1400 years ago neither you nor I can see, so if I will tell you then you may simply refuse. Although I know that you would never accept it as you seem to have higher insight about life (at least you believe that) and I am only a straw man. But I will give you the example that was valid then as well as now. And the best example I can think of is Zaqat (charity system that is one of five main pillars of Islam) by Islam (through Muhammad) where anyone who has more than 85 gms gold worth wealth then they must pay 2.5% of that to poor around them. It sounds very ordinary but if all the people who come under this category fulfil their obligation then there would be no poor in the world.
http://berkeley.edu/n...05/06/17_townes.shtml
This Nobel prize winner almost thinks as I do.
http://berkeley.edu/n...05/06/17_townes.shtml
But there are big names of the past in this list who think differently.
http://www.cartage.or...rwinism/Darwinism.htm
Lazy – Your long list about what science has done for humanity is interesting. Where I do not dispute all that shall we say that scientist also developed drugs that many people abuse in the world. Or shall we blame the abusers only for that? How Muhammad has helped poor? Well whatever he did 1400 years ago neither you nor I can see, so if I will tell you then you may simply refuse. Although I know that you would never accept it as you seem to have higher insight about life (at least you believe that) and I am only a straw man. But I will give you the example that was valid then as well as now. And the best example I can think of is Zaqat (charity system that is one of five main pillars of Islam) by Islam (through Muhammad) where anyone who has more than 85 gms gold worth wealth then they must pay 2.5% of that to poor around them. It sounds very ordinary but if all the people who come under this category fulfil their obligation then there would be no poor in the world.
A little difference in name but perhaps this what you were refering to,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould
Keyplus asks what science has to say about love and other emotions.
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging has shown us much about the parts of the brain involved in all kinds of mental activity both conscious and unconscious including feelings of love.
Evolutionary theory elucidates the advantages of bonding and cooperation. Even actions that disadvantage individuals but benefit a group of releated individuals as whole can be shown to advance that behaviour in the whole population.
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging has shown us much about the parts of the brain involved in all kinds of mental activity both conscious and unconscious including feelings of love.
Evolutionary theory elucidates the advantages of bonding and cooperation. Even actions that disadvantage individuals but benefit a group of releated individuals as whole can be shown to advance that behaviour in the whole population.
@keyplus - bah, same old same old. Science, either directly or indiirectly, helps the poor and dispossessed and you should stop beng so dismissive of the benefits of science in your posts. And religions do not have any sort of monopoly on charitable giving, so your Mohammed cannot attempt to take the moral high ground there either. If Islam does promote charity, good , but stop with the dismissive commentary of the value of science in our society.
As for your links - well, Charles Towne is entitled to his views, but it boils down essentially to a kind of "God of the Gaps", rather than a god that continually interacts with humanity. Nor does he deny Evolution. I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve by posting a link to Towne - Is it as some kind of attempt to argue from authority? If you want to present a case that eminent scientists believe in God, then great, you have found 1, but he is in an insignificant minority ( recent polls of both the Royal Society and the USAs National Academy of Science found that respondents were overwhelmingly athiest 93-97%). If you are attempting to link to an authority figure with respect to Evolution, then what value do you think people are going to attribute to a physicist, even a Nobel Prize winning one, over such eminent Biologists, such as Steven J. Gould, or Richard Dawkins, or heck, pretty much every single Biologist I have ever heard of? One final point on Towne - If you think that his sort of God matches Islams view you are sadly, sadly mistaken. He believes in a kind of "God of the Gaps", which is barely intellectually acceptable given our current scientific understanding, but only just.
-ctd-
As for your links - well, Charles Towne is entitled to his views, but it boils down essentially to a kind of "God of the Gaps", rather than a god that continually interacts with humanity. Nor does he deny Evolution. I am not sure what you are hoping to achieve by posting a link to Towne - Is it as some kind of attempt to argue from authority? If you want to present a case that eminent scientists believe in God, then great, you have found 1, but he is in an insignificant minority ( recent polls of both the Royal Society and the USAs National Academy of Science found that respondents were overwhelmingly athiest 93-97%). If you are attempting to link to an authority figure with respect to Evolution, then what value do you think people are going to attribute to a physicist, even a Nobel Prize winning one, over such eminent Biologists, such as Steven J. Gould, or Richard Dawkins, or heck, pretty much every single Biologist I have ever heard of? One final point on Towne - If you think that his sort of God matches Islams view you are sadly, sadly mistaken. He believes in a kind of "God of the Gaps", which is barely intellectually acceptable given our current scientific understanding, but only just.
-ctd-
-ctd-
As for your last link - It is an irrelevance, a propaganda exercise, no more. It relies, in part, on pre WW2 arguments !, and focuses on the alleged paucity of the fossil record. Whilst it might be true that some biologists did attempt to create a hypothesis to explain this perceived lack,one thing they most definitely weren't was supporting the nonsense that is creationism.Regardless, such hypotheses never found traction in the wider biological community in any event, largely because of the wealth of evidence and data supporting the conventional view from other scientific disicplines, such as molecular biology and DNA analysis, paleontology, geology etc
The continued denial of evolution by religious fundamentalists from any religion is pathetic, retrogressive and anti-scientific, a particular concern of mine when it comes to the influence of Islam in scientific education in the UK.
As for your last link - It is an irrelevance, a propaganda exercise, no more. It relies, in part, on pre WW2 arguments !, and focuses on the alleged paucity of the fossil record. Whilst it might be true that some biologists did attempt to create a hypothesis to explain this perceived lack,one thing they most definitely weren't was supporting the nonsense that is creationism.Regardless, such hypotheses never found traction in the wider biological community in any event, largely because of the wealth of evidence and data supporting the conventional view from other scientific disicplines, such as molecular biology and DNA analysis, paleontology, geology etc
The continued denial of evolution by religious fundamentalists from any religion is pathetic, retrogressive and anti-scientific, a particular concern of mine when it comes to the influence of Islam in scientific education in the UK.
@Keyplus - I forgot to address the ridiculous point you made to the effect that, whilst science may create drugs that are helpful, they also create the drugs that are abused. And your point, exaclty, is what? Humans can abuse pretty much anything should they so wish. Does your religion forbid caffeine, or khat?
I mean, it is such a weak argument - taken to its logical absurdity, we should roll back science to prehistoric times, for fear that something might be abused. It is just such a weak, nothing argument Keyplus.
If you are going to criticize science for its potential to be abused, We are certainly entitled to point the finger at repressive, authoritarian, patriarchal and out of date religions, particularly Islam, for causing untold death and sufferiing over the years.!!
I mean, it is such a weak argument - taken to its logical absurdity, we should roll back science to prehistoric times, for fear that something might be abused. It is just such a weak, nothing argument Keyplus.
If you are going to criticize science for its potential to be abused, We are certainly entitled to point the finger at repressive, authoritarian, patriarchal and out of date religions, particularly Islam, for causing untold death and sufferiing over the years.!!
Keyplus, This is crazy. The Koran promotes a 7th century Middle Eastern mentality, which in the 21st century is clearly and demonstrably wrong. Your continual dismissal of its inaccuracy merely serves to confirm the extent to which you are obsessed with this ignorant nonsense.
You claim to know how many children I have - so you tell me. And I would like an answer please.
And by the way, Jewish law requires Jews to give not 2.5% of their income to charity, but 10%, so something else that Islam has copied - except the Jews are a little more generous.
You claim to know how many children I have - so you tell me. And I would like an answer please.
And by the way, Jewish law requires Jews to give not 2.5% of their income to charity, but 10%, so something else that Islam has copied - except the Jews are a little more generous.
The similarities between Islam and Judaism should come as no surprise since Islam is a derivitive of Judaism. Mohammed (pubh) went to the leaders and presented himself as the next prophet. They said he had done no miracles and so declined.
So he made his own religion and went round enforcing it on other people. Islam still enforces itself and is working toward the entire human population of the planet being Moslem.
Along with Christianity, Islam and Judaism all uphold Abraham as their first prophet because he conceived the idea of a single all-powerful god. Indeed they all worship the same god but disagree on the name.
The derivatives both adapted their rituals and beliefs to suit their audience. Probably the most ironic is the Christian tradition of a Christmas ham despite the Bible forbidding the touching, let alone eating of anything to do with a pig. No doubt the Solstice Ham was somethiong the Romans were not going to give up to become believers in the theist deity.
So he made his own religion and went round enforcing it on other people. Islam still enforces itself and is working toward the entire human population of the planet being Moslem.
Along with Christianity, Islam and Judaism all uphold Abraham as their first prophet because he conceived the idea of a single all-powerful god. Indeed they all worship the same god but disagree on the name.
The derivatives both adapted their rituals and beliefs to suit their audience. Probably the most ironic is the Christian tradition of a Christmas ham despite the Bible forbidding the touching, let alone eating of anything to do with a pig. No doubt the Solstice Ham was somethiong the Romans were not going to give up to become believers in the theist deity.
Naomi - I never claimed to know that how many children you had. All I said that I knew what your answer would be, and I was right. I knew that you would not tell me and that answer I was referring to. However as you have taken the PAIN BIT so seriously so I will assume that you have ONLY ONE CHILD as after that you decided to have no more. Of course due to the pain. However if you have more than one then for some reason this pain bit got serious afterward so it has nothing to do with the real matter.
@Keyplus - "Who invented nuclear weapons then?" is this yet another risible attempt to pin the blame of all the evils of the world on this fictional, monolithic entity you label as science?
If so, it would be entirely in keeping with your usual lack of logical rigour or valid intellectual content in your argument, and it hardly merits the effort of pointing out that in order to read this board and to post this comment in the first place, you are making use of the very science you so regularly castigate and despise.
Religion relies on faith, the concept of belief in something without any evidence or even plausiblilty, and the invocation of the supernatural. Organised religions impose cultural rules and restrictions on society that may have been relevant in the dark ages, but have little or no relevance today.
And, within the most virulent, organised religions, such as Islam, the fundamentalist fanatics promote medieval world views, hatred, jihad and indiscriminate murder upon non-believers, those who offer alleged verbal or visual "insults" to their precious prophet, or apostasy.
If so, it would be entirely in keeping with your usual lack of logical rigour or valid intellectual content in your argument, and it hardly merits the effort of pointing out that in order to read this board and to post this comment in the first place, you are making use of the very science you so regularly castigate and despise.
Religion relies on faith, the concept of belief in something without any evidence or even plausiblilty, and the invocation of the supernatural. Organised religions impose cultural rules and restrictions on society that may have been relevant in the dark ages, but have little or no relevance today.
And, within the most virulent, organised religions, such as Islam, the fundamentalist fanatics promote medieval world views, hatred, jihad and indiscriminate murder upon non-believers, those who offer alleged verbal or visual "insults" to their precious prophet, or apostasy.
Keyplus, you're acknowledging that childbirth is painful? That can't be right. Your book says it's easy. Mmm…….something wrong there.
I don’t talk about my private life here, but on this occasion I’ll make an exception and tell you I didn’t decide to stop after one. You and your ridiculous book insult women in more ways than one - but that is only to be expected from a philosophy that hasn’t progressed one iota in the past 1400 years and clearly makes fools of it‘s adherents.
I don’t talk about my private life here, but on this occasion I’ll make an exception and tell you I didn’t decide to stop after one. You and your ridiculous book insult women in more ways than one - but that is only to be expected from a philosophy that hasn’t progressed one iota in the past 1400 years and clearly makes fools of it‘s adherents.
Latest Posts
If You Protest You Must Be Mentally Ill.
News2 mins ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.