GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
There is a scientist and a non-scientist. The non-scientist is entering a battle of wits, but he's apparently unarmed.
Quote:
Laissez faire!
Don't use terms unless you know what they mean. How, exactly, do you apply that term to this thread? And what does the thread title of "Solar Eclipse" have to do with the link you posted??
Please...stop trolling this site. If you believe that knob who's going to debate Mr. Nye, that's fine. MANY folks knew about this debate for some time now. And while I don't agree with Dawkins, I can respect his right to his opinion, and know the truth when I hear it. This sums it up nicely:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawkins
"But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science."
Good point right there. I am very interested in this debate, only to see Bill Nye just own this Ham character.
Btw , Bill Nye is awesome and I loved watching his show when I was a kid. Too bad my math skills were crap, but he did make science fun and made me curious about it.
I hope he keeps inspiring more younger people to take up engineering fields and learning maths and sciences, otherwise we may as well slip back into the dark ages.
Good point right there. I am very interested in this debate, only to see Bill Nye just own this Ham character.
Yes, he will, but someone in the comments on that article summed it up nicely:
"Debating creationists is like playing Chess with a Pigeon. They'll knock all the pieces over, crap on the board and then fly off to their flock and declare victory." Which is what normally happens...something will come up that they can't refute and you'll get a non-sequitur type answer that derails everything, or Mr Nye will answer honestly and say "We don't know yet", and presto! "See! They don't have the answers!"
That's funny, the gangsta rap lip-syncing, skateboard-stunting, marijuana-binging free spirits at my high school were pretty nice people.
---
Y'know, you will never change the mind of someone whose mind is already made-up i.e. "closed." Such that I really don't think it does anyone any good to try.
As for me, I embrace both. I'm delighted to have a sense of wonder, of impossible bigness, of unfathomable mysteries the likes of which I know I will never understand. I really don't want a "'small, nice, pocket-sized' God." I don't want to feel like the end of life is reduced to a choice between a heavenly golden carrot or a flaming burning stick. I'm not afraid of "the discovery of geologic time," nor of the important role of evolution, partly because I have always realized that Genesis Chapter 1 is a poem, as well as an allegory. (An earthly sphere covered by water, surrounded by neither sun nor moon nor stars, that somehow nevertheless isn't frozen solid? Comes with the territory. The book is what it is.) And I'm not looking for a substitute "certainty." I have no need nor expectation of "certainty."
Don't give me a simple, easy-to-understand God that is wrapped-up in human concerns and comprehensible by the human mind. I know that "the entire elephant" does not look like that. I'm cool with ... delighted, even ... not to "know." Or even to pretend to. And so I look askance at those who say in so many words that they do. Study the books for what they are ... "books." Embrace them for what they are, not for what they aren't and realistically can't be. If you believe in [a] God, then He isn't limited by books either. Better to admit being a babbling fool about such things than to pretend to be smart. We weren't "there when the foundations of the world were laid." We don't know, and we never will, no matter how hard we try. (And it's okay to try. Just don't get in your fellow-traveler's face about it.)
I don't see differences, religious or not, people grow from there surroundings and mistakes to learn from (or brake free of...) in my opinion science can\is bring a vastly superior education on right from wrong. The poll reflects a tiny span of humanity and when we consider how short our lifespan (even how much we change in it➞) compared to the blink of the eye "back to the start of it all"(—human concept not possible in infinity again IMH↻.) Just look at human history if we learn to teach only "facts," stupidity may fade away?
Last edited by jamison20000e; 02-04-2014 at 01:58 PM.
I don't see differences, religious or not, people grow from there surroundings and mistakes to learn from (or brake free of...) in my opinion science can\is bring a vastly superior education on right from wrong.
The risk, of course, is that "science" can become your "substitute religion." Your "substitute source of 'certainty.'" (I'm using the word "you" in an impersonal sense, BTW ...) I think that it is entirely reasonable to think that people do want to know "for certain," and if they reject religion as a source, they might embrace science instead.
But ... "science" is very limited, too. It's just a different production of human observation. It, too, cannot answer the Eternal Questions. "Scientific philosophy" pursuits can explore a conjecture, say, that "evolution is the 'origin of [all] species' (and everything else)," and maybe it can do so without encountering demonstrable contra-indications (at least as seen by the philosopher in question), but is that ... Truth? Well, no. It can't be. You can push beyond the limits of science, just as surely as you can push beyond the limits of religion.
"Scientific philosophy" is an excellent tool for organizing conjecture ... for exploring where the limits of "what we know" do or don't (or rather, could or couldn't) be. But people who don't understand the ground-rules of this exercise mistake "the absence of apparent contra-indication" for "therefore, proof that The Answer does lie in that particular direction or conclusion." It doesn't. I personally suspect that Charles Darwin discovered part of a very important finding but probably not all of it. That he probably did identify "The Origin of Species," but not necessarily also "Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order ... etc." (And note that he never said that he did.) (A system for self-adaptation makes sense, and can be observed. But an avenue across the major boundaries between life-form types? I doubt it. I suspect that a preventive mechanism exists in biology, even if we haven't identified it yet.) Yet, until that future discovery is made, and if it is made, we won't "Know."
Either way, I think, we're stuck with not having our "certainty." We can "know" with a little-K, but I think we're simply stuck short of the big-K "Know" that we all want. The Eternal Questions ... Answered. And placed into a tidy, tiny box.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 02-04-2014 at 04:40 PM.
My religion (science be damned LOL) proves to me that facts change like religions and people, it maybe the only thing we can be sure of. But, if it defies common sense; real problem is define common sense, can religion or science do this better? One has an actually defined "teaching" the other preaching... I say let the "The Eternal Questions" go but $$$, tradition and power!?.
Should we have a death penalty circling the idea that killing (or vengeance) is OK in some ways, in turn keeping the root problems that lead back to "needing" capital murder? (&c...)
It would it be better to do away with all religions, tradition and nations as ("unimaginable tracks of) time" will do it anyway.
...I think that it is entirely reasonable to think that people do want to know "for certain," and if they reject religion as a source, they might embrace...
Lottery tickets, alcohol, depression, $, &c,,, learning to enjoy life for all?
Last edited by jamison20000e; 02-04-2014 at 11:31 PM.
The risk, of course, is that "science" can become your "substitute religion." Your "substitute source of 'certainty.'" (I'm using the word "you" in an impersonal sense, BTW ...) I think that it is entirely reasonable to think that people do want to know "for certain," and if they reject religion as a source, they might embrace science instead.{...}
Science is just one source for truth same goes for religion but i agree that there are more sources out there. Quest for truth should be main goal for truth-seekers instead regardless of source.
Quote:
Seek truth and you will find a path. ~Frank Slaughter
Last edited by Arcane; 02-05-2014 at 01:16 AM.
Reason: typo
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.