• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

You Have No Constitutional Right To Your Own Science

Does An American Have Freedom Of Science?

  • I think my religion explains the world and I have no use for science

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
ALot of people say alot of things...I dont want to know what they SAY...I want to know...WHERE THE FIRST LIFE FORM CAME FROM OR WHO CREATED IT....and thus far no one has been able to tell me :(....know why ? because no one knows...not science, nor religion
What do I personally believe ? I dont have a clue

And it get's to a point where that question of "where did life begin?" gets out of the realm of science.
 
sigh...now they can create false life...but they couldnt create the very first LIVING organism or anything else...science didnt exist

Science always existed, we just haven't always been around to be aware of it. Physics doesn't not exist because no one is around to observe it.
 
Thats all one sides opinion...they have NO CLUE where the very very start of life came from...whether it was created....one thing is for certain...science didnt create it in a test tube...there was no science then..

It is not even opinion, it is a possibility, and one that is fully within the realm of natural causes. So just because we do not know does not mean that the answer is "god did it" when there are other perfectly rational explanations and possibilities as well.

There is nothing wrong with saying "we do not know" the great thing about this is that when faced with that many will append this saying "We do not know... yet" and continue to explore for an answer. Filling in an assumed answer -especially a supernatural one - for "We do not know" gets us nowhere.
 
ALot of people say alot of things...I dont want to know what they SAY...I want to know...WHERE THE FIRST LIFE FORM CAME FROM OR WHO CREATED IT....and thus far no one has been able to tell me :(....know why ? because no one knows...not science, nor religion
What do I personally believe ? I dont have a clue

This is honest, a rare thing today..
Too many say they "know"..
Well, IMO, they do not....nor do I!
In my opinion, both life and the universal were not "created", but always were....no beginning, no end.....
Man possesses love..."God" is absolute total love...
We have "love", without it, evolution produces the Frankenstein Monster, not the beautiful things we have now.
A philosophy.
 
And it get's to a point where that question of "where did life begin?" gets out of the realm of science.
The trouble with religion is that it puts limits on things (man's thinking)...it tries to give an answer to man's question(life) when science should be doing this..
We need to give science a lot more time.
 
Wolfman you will notice I took pains to differintiate scientists of whom not all of them are inflexible and dogmatic and I would venture to say a majority of scientists that are true to the scientific method. I said that a large part of them were not. Flexibility with method or ethic was in no way what I was describing, but rather flexibility in stretching the mind, and inate curiosity to explore new avenues of thought. I am quite fortunate to work with people in a field that are truly passionate about their science and engineering and vigously ridgid and even ruthless in their application of the Method. That said I notice in some fields this ruthless rigor is not so strenuously applied. Climate scientists being the group that stands out. Their rigor in method application is suspect. I am not saying all of them, but definately I would say a more than a few.

Sorry my bad
 
I don't think scientists believing in their hypotheses in necessarily problematic, so long as they stop believing when they are proven wrong. And I think it's a good thing that scientists believe in the possibility of vaccines before creating or discovering them since that belief may give them the push needed to create/discover it in the first place.

I understand your point and agree with it but I was talking about those who go in with a preconcieved notion of what will happen before they even begin. This is bias and it is heavily frowned upon
 
It is not even opinion, it is a possibility, and one that is fully within the realm of natural causes. So just because we do not know does not mean that the answer is "god did it" when there are other perfectly rational explanations and possibilities as well.

There is nothing wrong with saying "we do not know" the great thing about this is that when faced with that many will append this saying "We do not know... yet" and continue to explore for an answer. Filling in an assumed answer -especially a supernatural one - for "We do not know" gets us nowhere.


Nowhere in any of my posts did I say god did it...or insinuate god did it...The only emphatic statement that ive made on the topic is that ...I dont have a clue how life started...and neither do you or anyone else
 
It is not even opinion, it is a possibility, and one that is fully within the realm of natural causes. So just because we do not know does not mean that the answer is "god did it" when there are other perfectly rational explanations and possibilities as well.

There is nothing wrong with saying "we do not know" the great thing about this is that when faced with that many will append this saying "We do not know... yet" and continue to explore for an answer. Filling in an assumed answer -especially a supernatural one - for "We do not know" gets us nowhere.


Same answer I gave ikari...Ive never said god did it...I said no one knows, not me not you not science not the rabbi, priest or preacher either
 
This is honest, a rare thing today..
Too many say they "know"..
Well, IMO, they do not....nor do I!
In my opinion, both life and the universal were not "created", but always were....no beginning, no end.....
Man possesses love..."God" is absolute total love...
We have "love", without it, evolution produces the Frankenstein Monster, not the beautiful things we have now.
A philosophy.


Everything has to have a beginning in my mind...the entire question is what started the very beginning....no one knows...theres alot of people that make alot of money off of giving me their opinion, which is worth not a nickle more than mine...until someone really does KNOW
 
Well, I can appreciate your sorrow at your brother's loss of his childhood faith, and it is true, few scientists are religious. However, I think you indict science for something it isn't responsible for -- each individual has a duty to manage his own inner life, Tigger.

As for "replacing science", nope, not an option.

this is total bull. I have only met one scientist in my 35+ years who did not believe in God or some time of supreme being. THis is the biggest falacy of the right wing and religous right. Because we work in a way that is not understandable to them its heresy or something. the problem is that Carl Sagan who was an atheist popularized the notion.

As I have said before the best non-scientific explanation of science I have ever heard was that it was mans attempt to explain the existence of God/creator by rationale means.

No person who works in the natural sciencess and is in his right mind would deny the existence of a force greater than him/herself.
 
You are correct; atheism is probably at its highest among American scientists, as compared to Americans generally.




Will your faith lead you to a cure for cancer? Alternative energy source? Map of the Universe?

85-90% of all scientists believe in God/Creator/power greater than themselves. Please stop this is offensive
 
Science in my humble uneducated opninion is necessary must be nutured and CONTROLLED. I believe the "mad scientist syndrome" can exist and do harm and I do believe that scientists will lie through their teeth to get their name published in some book somewhere and that has happened many times already.
Science is the way we learn and progress...but it has to be controlled and not let to its own designs totally.. Just recently all the lieing on both sides about global warming has so diluted the truth...no one really knows what the hell the truth is.

But who controls us. The right or religion? That has been tried and failed horribly. We are in the 21st century and we still drive internal combustion engines. We still use fossil fuels, are still for the most part stuck on this tiny rock in space. WHo decides.

I understand your point and believe that we do a pretty good job of monitoring ourselves, but if there must be some type of "control" or review (better word) then let us have an equal part in the process.
 
85-90% of all scientists believe in God/Creator/power greater than themselves. Please stop this is offensive

Why is it offensive?

I have seen study after study that concludes this. If I am wrong, it's merely a mistake of fact and offensive only if you think atheists are defective.
 
But who controls us. The right or religion? That has been tried and failed horribly. We are in the 21st century and we still drive internal combustion engines. We still use fossil fuels, are still for the most part stuck on this tiny rock in space. WHo decides.

I understand your point and believe that we do a pretty good job of monitoring ourselves, but if there must be some type of "control" or review (better word) then let us have an equal part in the process.

I see a role for a philosopher on ethics issues, but no role whatsoever in actual science for any non-scientist.
 
Old argument...I dont think anyone really doubts evolution...where the doubt comes in is how the very first life form was created to begin the process of evolution, the very first lifeform could not have evolved.

by the scientific definition of natural evolution this is true, but when the physical definition is applied then the process could be considered to be a type of evolution. People have to understand that our "evolution" in the field of evolution has resulted in two distinct definitions one is natural and the other physical. They are unique to each other but have essentially the same end point.
 
You have the right to your own science, since this is covered under the right to pursue happiness. However, if you try to make that personal science mainstream, your science will be subject to the scrutiny of the scientific method. This will help set the record straight.

Another consideration is magic, like levitating your lovely assistant on a stage. Magic requires science to help create the illusion. You need to know the physics and material properties needed to design you apparatus as well as knowledge of the human mind and human nature to make the trick work. There is a lot of good science involved in magic, all of which has to be real, to create the illusion.

A good example, which fools many people is there is an island nation that is blaming larger countries for causing the oceans to rise via global warming. Scientists have measured the sea level near the islands and it is rising with the water causing problems and costs. This sea level change can be verified, but if you look carefully the wires are showing so it is a magic trick.

Water does not pile up in only certain locations of the earth, but will seek a common level. If the rise was true, the water should be rising, uniformly everywhere all over the earth. Since this island country is seeing the highest degree of the problem, sea level rise has to be magic. A more realistic explanation is the land is sinking thereby making the ocean appear to rise when you measure it. Science is big business and sometimes magic is useful.

The right to your own science is needed to help set the record straight. The herd is often easy to fool and if they start to stampede the truth is lost and we get a magic trick based on the best science. But certain things need to be hidden to work.
 
The scientific method originated with the experimental validation that Eratosthenes carried out about 2200 years ago. He determined the circumference of the earth to within about +/- 5% accuracy, using a theory that the earth is spherical and that the curvature of the earth could be determined using shadows cast at different locations on the earth's surface

It was in the temple of science where the Priests developed the digital computer and the internet.

You need to pray to the Quantum Mechanical deity

And he verified this mathematical formula by hiring men to walk off the distance between one of his base points and the other keeping track of their measurements as they went. A distance (as I remember of several hundred miles).
 
Who created the very first life form...or what...or where did it come from

In order to understand where the first one celled organism came from you would have to first understand bio chemistry and cellular biology as well as organic and inorganic chemistry. It is not a simple answer and it took probalby millions of years to happen. The real question is where did the Big Bang come from?
 
No one created it; it evolved. I guess I imagine something like Dr. Frankenstein on a molecular level -- highly conductive elements, animated by electricity.

So, a question for you: will your faith be impaired if ever they discover life existed on Mars?

If you have been keeping track they have already found some of the "building blocks" for life on Mars. Whether they ever got beyond that point is a good question.
 
Why is it offensive?

I have seen study after study that concludes this. If I am wrong, it's merely a mistake of fact and offensive only if you think atheists are defective.

Its offensive to me and all the others of us who believe in a supreme being or creator. to label the majority of a group as one thing or the other without knowing for sure is wrong. Period. What if I said you were an atheist because of what you did and all like you were?

I personally resent being labelled by people who do not know the facts. It offends me and my faith.
 
I see a role for a philosopher on ethics issues, but no role whatsoever in actual science for any non-scientist.

I just wish this was reality. We are and have been controlled by people with no idea of how we operate or what our guidelines are and this will not stop anytime soon. Pity
 
You have the right to your own science, since this is covered under the right to pursue happiness. However, if you try to make that personal science mainstream, your science will be subject to the scrutiny of the scientific method. This will help set the record straight.

Another consideration is magic, like levitating your lovely assistant on a stage. Magic requires science to help create the illusion. You need to know the physics and material properties needed to design you apparatus as well as knowledge of the human mind and human nature to make the trick work. There is a lot of good science involved in magic, all of which has to be real, to create the illusion.

A good example, which fools many people is there is an island nation that is blaming larger countries for causing the oceans to rise via global warming. Scientists have measured the sea level near the islands and it is rising with the water causing problems and costs. This sea level change can be verified, but if you look carefully the wires are showing so it is a magic trick.

Water does not pile up in only certain locations of the earth, but will seek a common level. If the rise was true, the water should be rising, uniformly everywhere all over the earth. Since this island country is seeing the highest degree of the problem, sea level rise has to be magic. A more realistic explanation is the land is sinking thereby making the ocean appear to rise when you measure it. Science is big business and sometimes magic is useful.

The right to your own science is needed to help set the record straight. The herd is often easy to fool and if they start to stampede the truth is lost and we get a magic trick based on the best science. But certain things need to be hidden to work.

There is no such thing as individual sciencee (your own science) there is just science. It is up to the individual to decide whether he or she will accept it or not. Science is science it has no party, no side no country.
 
Back
Top Bottom