Ignorance

[wil]

I am ignorant of many things...

I don't know how exactly the smart phone in my hand works...

But when folks are ignorant of basic science...

When folks think man and the universe could be created in 7 seconds...

I am saddened not only for them....but our civilization.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Oh NOW you've done it! It is much, much worse than you suggest. People are not ignorant of science. They consciously choose to believe that scientific facts are not relevant if it conflicts with what they prefer to believe. This does not make me sad, it makes me furious! Here we are at the dawn of the 21st century and a significant part of the population of this country have no more understanding of our world than someone from the Middle Ages.

People in the Middle Ages had an excuse. They didn't have the font of scientific knowledge we have today. What possible excuse do the science deniers have today?

Wil may not understand how his smart phone works, and he would be in good company as most of the rest of us have only the vaguest idea how it does what it does. And you know what, the science unbelievers don't know how their phone works either, but those of us on the side of sanity know it works because we understand there is advanced science & technology that made this gadget possible.

And you know what? Science deniers also know that science & technology are behind these products. So they are willing to accept science when it suits their needs, and only reject it when it conflicts with their wishes.

This is lunacy!

 

[wil]

I am learning not to be furious, it doesn't benefit me.

And it is all about me.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Really? I thought it was all about me!

 

[omega2xx]

I am ignorant of many things...

I don't know how exactly the smart phone in my hand works...

Everyone is ignorant of some things. I got a smart phone and my son tole me it was to complex for me. Sometimes the truth hurts.

But when folks are ignorant of basic science...

Let me kindly put that statement in your ignorance column. That is usually the comment when some on rejects evolution in favor of ID. I assure you I am knowledgeable of the basics of science as you are, maybe more so. Also their PhD's in all science disciplines that reject evolution.

When folks think man and the universe could be created in 7 seconds...

It saddens me when people have no scientific evidence for the existence of matter and life, but reject an omnipotent God as their Creator. If you have a better explanation, please present it.

am saddened not only for them....but our civilization.

America was a far better place to live in when the people accepted God as our Creator, than it is today. Since I was a teenager, many., many years ago, America has continually become more violent and less honest and farther away from the God of the Bible. When Israel did that, God sent them into captivity. Our society better hope Israel's history is not an allegory of life. When things got so bad, they would return to God and then things got better again. Something to think about although I am sure you will not even consider such an idea.

 

[omega2xx]

Oh NOW you've done it! It is much, much worse than you suggest. People are not ignorant of science. They consciously choose to believe that scientific facts are not relevant if it conflicts with what they prefer to believe. This does not make me sad, it makes me furious! Here we are at the dawn of the 21st century and a significant part of the population of this country have no more understanding of our world than someone from the Middle Ages.

Wrong. It is the evolutionists who have no facts, so they present THEORIES as fact. I challenge you to present one one thing the TOE has proved scientifically. I will make it easy for you---provide the evidence they offer for natural selection, a favorite staple of evolution, being the mechanism for a change of species. You imply re reject evolution based on our religious beliefs but that is wrong. When evolution is the subject I never mention the Bible except to show that "after its kind" has been scientifically proven an cant be falsified. If you want to be furious, be furious about evolutinists saying a dog-like animal, pakicetus, eventually became a whale, which violates the proven laws of genetics.

People in the Middle Ages had an excuse. They didn't have the font of scientific knowledge we have today. What possible excuse do the science deniers have today?

Be assured there are Scientist more qualified than anyone in this forum who reject the TOE on scientific knowledge. We do not reject science, we reject a faith system that offer no scientific evidence for the their theology.

Wil may not understand how his smart phone works, and he would be in good company as most of the rest of us have only the vaguest idea how it does what it does. And you know what, the science unbelievers don't know how their phone works either, but those of us on the side of sanity know it works because we understand there is advanced science & technology that made this gadget possible.

Irrelevant. You still haven't figured out why evolution is still called a theory after 100+ years of study.

And you know what? Science deniers also know that science & technology are behind these products. So they are willing to accept science when it suits their needs, and only reject it when it conflicts with their wishes.

Another false statement-- we thank all the scientist how have made it possible. What we have today is uilt on the backs of what real scientist have PROVEN over the years.

This is lunacy!

True lunacy is accepting something as true when no evidence is offered to support what was said.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

You still haven't figured out why evolution is still called a theory after 100+ years of study.

This one simple statement shows me you do not have any basic understanding of the scientific method on which genuine science is founded. Everything in science is a 'theory' because science is honest enough to accept that new discoveries might change our current understanding.

That does not change the fact that many theories have been proven to such an extent that they are considered fact. Evolution by natural selection is one such theory that is also fact. And no I have don't have any interest in providing you with an example for you to trash. You may keep on thinking that it is because I am so insecure about what I know to be true. The reality though is that I have been on this merry go round with Creationists too many times and it is an exercise in futility. Like I said before, I cannot be bothered to tilt at windmills.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

The reality though is that I have been on this merry go round with Creationists too many times and it is an exercise in futility.

...and yet the same subject keeps coming up over and over again with the very same stones being cast by both sides. Personally, I don't think either side has it 100% right and as long as each holds the idea that creation denies science and science denies creation, I doubt they ever will. Plenty of ignorance to go around on this one.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Science doesn't deny Creation though. Science has nothing to say about Creation. For or against. Those atheists who use science against theology (the prove your God to me crowd) do not understand, or are unwilling to admit, the limits of science.

 

[Craz]

I once asked a Christian (who believed in the Bible literally), that how come the "Sun being stopped for a day"(Joshua 10:13) is not recorded in any of the world history? I said "Surely people would have noticed."
He confidently replied that in those days people worked all day in the fields and would have just not noticed and extra 24 hours pf Sun.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Science doesn't deny Creation though. Science has nothing to say about Creation. For or against.

Semantics aside, that's my point. Not saying anything suggests an either/or scenario that forms the basis of most evolution vs creation arguments. Next thing you know an endless debate ensues with one side perceived as not understanding science and the other not understanding the Bible.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Semantics aside, that's my point. Not saying anything suggests an either/or scenario that forms the basis of most evolution vs creation arguments. Next thing you know an endless debate ensues with one side perceived as not understanding science and the other not understanding the Bible.

I perceive others as not understanding science when the misuse terms. 'Theory' has a different meaning in a scientific context from a everyday context, not all people have a reason to know this difference but anyone within the field must. Also differentiating between 'Christian scientists' as opposed to any other kind shows a serious lack of understanding the scientific process. Having read or memorize statements that actual scientists have made does not mean someone actually understand if what they say make any sense.

That is the sort of person that pushes that side of the discussion, and I don't really see a point in going on that merry-go-round. I don't know much about many religious questions, so I choose listen rather than talk on those subjects. I wish others would do similarly.

 

[wil]

I once asked a Christian (who believed in the Bible literally), that how come the "Sun being stopped for a day"(Joshua 10:13) is not recorded in any of the world history? I said "Surely people would have noticed."
He confidently replied that in those days people worked all day in the fields and would have just not noticed and extra 24 hours pf Sun.

. Yez.... since the world is flat and nobody would have 24 hours of darkness...

Me? I think I'll.watch the 24 hours of sunset!!

 

[omega2xx]

This one simple statement shows me you do not have any basic understanding of the scientific method on which genuine science is founded. Everything in science is a 'theory' because science is honest enough to accept that new discoveries might change our current understanding.

That does not change the fact that many theories have been proven to such an extent that they are considered fact. Evolution by natural selection is one such theory that is also fact. And no I have don't have any interest in providing you with an example for you to trash. You may keep on thinking that it is because I am so insecure about what I know to be true. The reality though is that I have been on this merry go round with Creationists too many times and it is an exercise in futility. Like I said before, I cannot be bothered to tilt at windmills.

This one simple statement shows me you do not have any basic understanding of the scientific method on which genuine science is founded. Everything in science is a 'theory' because science is honest enough to accept that new discoveries might change our current understanding.

Saying everything in science is a theory is not only the saddest things one can say about science, it is absolutely untrue and shows anyone saying such a ridiculous thing is the one who does not understand science. That is a evolutionist needed to invent because in 100+ years they have not been able to prove even 1 thing in what is still called a Theory. If everything is a theory, why do we have things called "law of science. The proven fact that there is more than 1 blood type cannot be falsified. That DNA is in all living things has been proven and can't be falsified. The list goes on and on. They don't give Nobel prizes for theories, only for what has been proved.

That does not change the fact that many theories have been proven to such an extent that they are considered fact.

Do you really not understand that a fact is no longer a theory?

Evolution by natural selection is one such theory that is also fact. And no I have don't have any interest in providing you with an example for you to trash.

That is because you can't and evidently you know it. It is sad you have put your faith in something you can even offer 1 example of. You would give your eye teeth to prove you are right, and I am wrong, but you can't. That statement points to the fact that it is your understanding of science that is lacking, not mine. I cannot trash what is true.

You may keep on thinking that it is because I am so insecure about what I know to be true. The reality though is that I have been on this merry go round with Creationists too many times and it is an exercise in futility. Like I said before, I cannot be bothered to tilt at windmills.

It is an exercise in futility because you have no proof for what you believe, so you must run away when confronted and ask for the evidence.

Come on DA, you could post one example in less than a minute if you had one. Wouldn't it be worth 1 minutes of your time to prove me wrong? I have donned my prophecy hat and I predict DA will cover his ears, as he runs away. It is truly sad when people say something but are not willing to back it up or admit they can't. O well, what else is new.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Please DA, can't you stop responding? I'm so tired of seeing his posts. I don't see why you let him bait you like this, his taunts are so childish.

 

[wil]

They don't give Nobel prizes for theories, only for what has been proved.

Well this thread is about ignorance.... So let us work on eliminating some of that...

.
Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Source
The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st Century Biology, National Academy of Sciences

 

[Devils' Advocate]

So let us work on eliminating some of that

I'm afraid Tea is right. No amount of fact or definition will help. So I'm done. Unless I can think of another angle on Wil's original question.

 

[omega2xx]

Saying everything in science is a theory is not only the saddest things one can say about science, it is absolutely untrue and shows anyone saying such a ridiculous thing is the one who does not understand science. That is a evolutionist needed to invent because in 100+ years they have not been able to prove even 1 thing in what is still called a Theory. If everything is a theory, why do we have things called "law of science. The proven fact that there is more than 1 blood type cannot be falsified. That DNA is in all living things has been proven and can't be falsified. The list goes on and on. They don't give Nobel prizes for theories, only for what has been proved.



Do you really not understand that a fact is no longer a theory?

. Yez.... since the world is flat and nobody would have 24 hours of darkness...


That is because you can't and evidently you know it. It is sad you have put your faith in something you can even offer 1 example of. You would give your eye teeth to prove you are right, and I am wrong, but you can't. That statement points to the fact that it is your understanding of science that is lacking, not mine. I cannot trash what is true.



It is an exercise in futility because you have no proof for what you believe, so you must run away when confronted and ask for the evidence.

Come on DA, you could post one example in less than a minute if you had one. Wouldn't it be worth 1 minutes of your time to prove me wrong? I have donned my prophecy hat and I predict DA will cover his ears, as he runs away. It is truly sad when people say something but are not willing to back it up or admit they can't. O well, what else is new.

 

[omega2xx]

Well this thread is about ignorance.... So let us work on eliminating some of that...

It is truly sad and dishonest to tweek well established definitions to protect the theology of Darwin.

Fact: 1. What really happened, or is the case, truth reality, in FACT rather than in THEORY. Something known to have happened ; a truth known b y actual experience or observation.

Hypothesis is accurate.

Law: 12 - in philosophical or scientific use--a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under same conditions.

We may not know all of the laws of gravity, but the ones that have been proven are called laws, no longer theories. Same with genetics.

Theory: 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. 2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural , in contrast to well established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual facts.

Even with their tweeked definitions, they still can't prove one thing the TOE preaches. I hope real definitions eliminate the ignorance from this thread, but I am sure it will not.

Source: The American College Encyclopedic Dictionary.

 

[wil]

No, we don't know about the toe...long way from that... But evolution...all might not be correct....but what we do know...it is real...

While seven days of creation and a young universe if 6500 years...is clearly not.

Like the climate change debate... 99% of scientists know evolution and climate.change has happened and is happening.... Very few have their heads in the sand