Evolutionary Thread Jacking!

[rwh11385]

I live in TX and I was taught the scientific method. However, you must understand that the scientific method doesn't benefit religion. Their version is to come to a conclusion first and then search for facts to back it up.

Also, there are 3 levels of highschool classes here; Honors, Advanced, and Academic. Academic is basically teaching you how to pass standardized tests so the school makes money. It also doesn't help that when someone is failing academic bio or chem the put them in a class that earns applicable credits like food science or agriculture so that they will pass. Public schools have become a joke and are crippling our country's future. The integrity of a HS diploma has diminished to the point that a college degree is the benchmark for mediocrity.

No big deal... they just need a GED and can go work without skills for GM for a lot of money and great benies or something...

OH wait

[netcsk]

God damn I hate to agree with you, but I do. I have minor in Philosophy.

I personally think Philosophy does a better job of teaching analytical and critical thinking skills than math.

I agree. The thing is, people that are good at math, generally don't need to be taught how to be analytical and think. It is one of those inherent things with being good at math.

Besides, a philosopher and engineering have skills in two different types of analytical and critical thinking skills.

[Hallen]

I don't know if I would call it easy, it's just different than the kind of work and study done in the sciences and math. I have heard people describe Philosophy as "you can say anything and get a good grade for it". This couldn't be further from the truth. 90% of what we do is study specific thinkers and their views and then support or object to them. This means understanding the thoughts of some of the greatest and most intelligent people ever, and then replying to them in a logical and rational form. It is not as easy as it sounds.

Say what you want, but my intellect has grown exponentially in just the past few years and I directly attribute this to what I have learned in Philosophy. The ability to do Philosophy is as much a skill as math and science.

Then why are your replies on politics always so irrational and based on feelings rather than logic? You're intelligence has NOT expanded because of your studies of philosophy. Intelligence is a God given gift (to stay on topic). You may have reduced your ignorance about what Nietzsche thought, but you haven't expanded your intelligence.

Taking the bible literally in all context is rarely, if ever done. I think taking the bible literally is a fallacy perpetuated by the corrupt churches of old to keep the people in line and to foist the power of the church. But that's my opinion. If you really want to study philosophy, then you should study the bible. There is meaning within meanings packed in there. It's just about all representative thought, not a fact based account of history.

Personally, I don't think religion and science are mutually exclusive. Religion, by definition, is amorphous and seems to evolve along with society. That is not to say that core beliefs and morals are not present, they are, but as people advance in what we know about the universe and each other, so does religion change to adapt to what we know. When the phrase "descend down into hell" is used, it isn't referring to physically going down (eg, to the center of the earth). It is most likely referring to the decent of the soul further away from God or further away from all that is good. You can't read the bible literally and only a fool would attempt to do so.

Science does not have all the answers, and probably never will. The key to religion is faith. Some would say "blind faith". I don't necessarily think so. Since there is no real evidence of God, the person has to have faith. They have their reasons for that and it should be respected and not derided just out of contempt for a person having faith.

Everybody has faith in something. Our friend Holmes here has faith that philosophy will broaden his mind and teach him the meaning of life. After all, that is what most of us are really searching for anyway. To others, they have faith in their fellow man or humanity and that is the ultimate truth in the universe. I could go on, but you get the point. Everybody has something they cling to as a matter of faith. Faith is all we have because nobody really knows what happens after you die. They have faith that something happens (or just blackness, but that is still something) after death. Belief in God is just one of those faiths.

It is not a contradiction in any way for a devoutly religious christian to say that evolution is proven and can't be disputed as a general fact (the specifics are still unclear of course, but that's normal). It is also not a contradiction to still believe in God even though you also believe in the science.

The major problem with religion is the aggressive and corrupt churches that exist now and in the past. Their conscription of people, their moralistic edicts, their heavy handed manipulation of people and politics gets a lot of people scared and defensive. This leads to derision and hate. Nobody likes to be told what to believe and to have a philosophy forced upon them. I think that there are churches out there that have done way more harm to religion than any atheist has ever been.

Anyway, there you go. My philosophy. I am not religious. I don't have the faith in a God that is required to be considered religious. I am agnostic. I crave some form of evidence that I can believe. Right now, that doesn't exist.

Philosophy is just as much a soft science as religion is, btw. It morphs over time to suit current culture. Any answer could be the right answer. It just comes down to the opinion of the teacher and certain logical guidelines. So where, exactly, does that differ from something like Christianity? Because a particular philosophy is abjectly worthless unless more than one person adheres to it.

[ragged325]

I'm just going to chime in on the philosophy/logic/math stuff. When I was in junior college (back in 1985), I took a course called Logic. The teacher was the most boring fucker ever and it was an hour and a half Tues./Thurs. class that had me falling asleep every time.

On the first day of the class, the guy handed out a sheet of paper with a list of fallacies. He spent the whole class each week just talking about one or two of the fallacies. I'm not saying that it made me the most logical thinker, but it made it a lot easier to spot bullshit. The list was similar to this one (I found the exact list a wikipedia once):

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

[eurotrashm20]

The more you talk the more you prove that you're not a traditionally educated person. There was a study performed (I forgot by whom) during which they placed all of the contents of the earth into a sealed container and electrically charged it. Guess what the result was? Nucleic acid.

Are you going to tell me that the jews used time travel to put it there? Maybe that they also scattered fossils all over the earth to play a trick on christians of little faith?

What is "traditionally educated" by your definition? just so I understand YOUR meaning.
Like I said I will find the scientific study that was done. I have been out all day.
Jews ... time travel? Are you serious? They wouldn't spend the money. I kid. But seriously I like the undercurrent there. Your saying I, because of what you ASSUME I believe, believe in far fetched and ridiculous ideas. Nice try.

[Turf1600]

What is "traditionally educated" by your definition? just so I understand YOUR meaning.
Like I said I will find the scientific study that was done. I have been out all day.
Jews ... time travel? Are you serious? They wouldn't spend the money. I kid. But seriously I like the undercurrent there. Your saying I, because of what you ASSUME I believe, believe in far fetched and ridiculous ideas. Nice try.

This will answer a lot: where are you from and what church do you belong to?

[Hallen]

This will answer a lot: where are you from and what church do you belong to?

No it won't.

[Turf1600]

No it won't.

Don't even act like you know where I was going with that

[eurotrashm20]

This will answer a lot: where are you from and what church do you belong to?

I moved around a great deal as a kid as dad climbed the corporate ladder. Where I reside now has no bearing on my educational background ... but Lexington, KY.
I do not belong to a church.
So what your theory?

[TwoJ's]

Fair enough.

I'm just bitter, because at the end the piece of paper they get is worth the same as the piece of paper I get.

If you go to school for a piece of paper rather than the knowledge and experience, then you are seriously mistaken.

[TwoJ's]

NO offense taken. I don't get all butt hurt at peoples statements ... you are entitled to your opinion as am I. I will agree that I should have been more clear. I was actually referring to being formed from sludge (cause I cannot think of the word I am looking for). I will try and find the studies to which I am referring.
Church funded scientists are still scientists. I will also say, IMO, that there are still holes in a great deal of the theories out there about how everything was started ... ON ALL SIDES. I will also state that philosophy bores the crap out of me. I generally do not dwell on what has been but what is currently happening or what is coming up. I am psychologically oriented ... meaning I like understanding how peoples minds and thoughts work.

Yes, there are holes in theories. That is what separates theory from fact. But anything anyone has ever said trying to convince people that there is a god is not theory. Nothing in the bible is theoretic. If you want to dispute that I suggest you google the definition of theory.

And I still can't believe that you are even talking about this subject. You said that science has disproven Darwin's theory of evolution. That is more idiotic than believing in a god.

[eurotrashm20]

There was a study performed (I forgot by whom) during which they placed all of the contents of the earth into a sealed container and electrically charged it. Guess what the result was? Nucleic acid.

I would like to know your source of information. I am assuming that you are talking about the "RNA world" hypothesis.

Again I will state that I needed to reread my sources to be sure I was remembering correctly. I kind of was but my wording was wrong. I have not looked at this information in probably 2 maybe 3 years as I have been filling my head with automotive related research.

[eurotrashm20]

Yes, there are holes in theories. That is what separates theory from fact. But anything anyone has ever said trying to convince people that there is a god is not theory. Nothing in the bible is theoretic. If you want to dispute that I suggest you google the definition of theory.

And I still can't believe that you are even talking about this subject. You said that science has disproven Darwin's theory of evolution. That is more idiotic than believing in a god.

That is what I said. And as I stated in my posted you quoted ... I should have been more clear. In fact I will go so far as to say I should have better organized my thoughts and had my terminology down. That being said I am still awaiting some of these facts that have been discussed.

Also, who said anything about the bible? I don't recall ever saying anything about the bible. I did say on both sides but never said one side was christian, Buddhist, hindu, or any other religion. I was actually referring the evolutionists and creationists.

[Massive Lee]

Also, who said anything about the bible

Creationism is a pure Christian product. The old guy upstair who created the world in 6 days... So basically, as soon as somebody introduces the concept of creationism, the bible is not far behind...

[Turf1600]

I would like to know your source of information. I am assuming that you are talking about the "RNA world" hypothesis.

Again I will state that I needed to reread my sources to be sure I was remembering correctly. I kind of was but my wording was wrong. I have not looked at this information in probably 2 maybe 3 years as I have been filling my head with automotive related research.

I'll look it up later - I have the info at home. It's a legitimate study performed in the early to mid 1900s. If you want I'll give you my sources in MLA format. And no, what I'm referring to is not a hypothesis.