• 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
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 dont know about you and Ill speak for me...no one controls me but my boss and weve been married along time :)
 
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?


Wolfman that sounded very good...it sounded professional intelligent and knowledgeable....errr except it didnt tell me where the first line of the living came from....who created it or made it or how it even came to be...so im still in the same boat....clueless just like everyone else
 
I dont know about you and Ill speak for me...no one controls me but my boss and weve been married along time :)

Yeah I know the feeling. But in academic and research science this is rarely the case even if the researchers are married.
 
Wolfman that sounded very good...it sounded professional intelligent and knowledgeable....errr except it didnt tell me where the first line of the living came from....who created it or made it or how it even came to be...so im still in the same boat....clueless just like everyone else

Yes I agree but my answer is in my last statement and most scientists have long ago accepted the answer to that question.
 
Yes I agree but my answer is in my last statement and most scientists have long ago accepted the answer to that question.


I dont have full trust in scientists...scientists that were HAILED as gods in the 1940s have been proven dead wrong...and Im sure scientists in 2012 in the future will be proven dead wrong....point is what they accept is not necessarily what is.
 
I dont have full trust in scientists...scientists that were HAILED as gods in the 1940s have been proven dead wrong...and Im sure scientists in 2012 in the future will be proven dead wrong....point is what they accept is not necessarily what is.

I have no idea what you are talking about but lets leave it that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I do not want to get into a yes they are no they aren't. This would be pointless and no one would get very far.
 
I have no idea what you are talking about but lets leave it that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I do not want to get into a yes they are no they aren't. This would be pointless and no one would get very far.


Good enough :)
 
I dont have full trust in scientists...scientists that were HAILED as gods in the 1940s have been proven dead wrong...and Im sure scientists in 2012 in the future will be proven dead wrong....point is what they accept is not necessarily what is.
The funny thing about science is that when proven wrong,it is more willing to admit it was wrong far quicker than religion does.Then it tries other avenues to pursue far quicker than religion does.
It may take a generation for science to admit it was wrong about something,but it takes religions centuries or even millenium (if it ever does) to admit it.

In my profession,there's a saying,"there is a science to cooking and an art to dining.A chef that relies of faith alone is a lousy chef".
 
Never going to happen. Physical v Natural evolution

There will always be the question, "What came before that?", and science can only answer that question up to a certain extent. People ask the question, "What came before the Big Bang?", and science may very well answer that question. But, then the question will be "What came before that which came before the Big Bang?", and science may find out the answer to that as well. But, this will just keep going on and on until science really can't give an answer.
 
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.

Again, it does not appear to me that "life" is a bright line, scientifically speaking.
 
The funny thing about science is that when proven wrong,it is more willing to admit it was wrong far quicker than religion does.Then it tries other avenues to pursue far quicker than religion does.
It may take a generation for science to admit it was wrong about something,but it takes religions centuries or even millenium (if it ever does) to admit it.

In my profession,there's a saying,"there is a science to cooking and an art to dining.A chef that relies of faith alone is a lousy chef".


Making statement out of the heiner means nothing...who says science admits their wrong more...science ? lol
 
Making statement out of the heiner means nothing...who says science admits their wrong more...science ? lol
Who says it doesn't...Religion?
Thinking out one's heiner doesn't means nothing either.
A lot of scientist used to believe the earth centric model of the universe was correct,and anything else was considered practically religious and scientific heresy.
How long did it take science to admit the earth centric model of the Universe was wrong,and how long did it take the the Catholic Church?

And before you answer, the device you are looking at right now,how did it come about?From religious belief or scientific investigation?
 
Who says it doesn't...Religion?
Thinking out one's heiner doesn't means nothing either.
A lot of scientist used to believe the earth centric model of the universe was correct,and anything else was considered practically religious and scientific heresy.
How long did it take science to admit the earth centric model of the Universe was wrong,and how long did it take the the Catholic Church?

And before you answer, the device you are looking at right now,how did it come about?From religious belief or scientific investigation?

And before everyone goes down this facetious path of who admits wrong ideas first, let's remember that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Isaac Newton's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isaac Newton (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727)[1] was, as considered by others within his own lifetime, an insightful and erudite theologian.[2][3][4] He wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies and religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible.[5]

Newton’s conception of the physical world provided a stable model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[6][7] Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[8] in recent times he has been described as a heretic.[9]
 
There will always be the question, "What came before that?", and science can only answer that question up to a certain extent. People ask the question, "What came before the Big Bang?", and science may very well answer that question. But, then the question will be "What came before that which came before the Big Bang?", and science may find out the answer to that as well. But, this will just keep going on and on until science really can't give an answer.

I know there are scientist alot smarter than me who accept your premise. I'm just not one of them. If there is such a thing I believe in an oscilating universe. But that a some point something started the ball rolling. But thats just me.
 
I see only one potential gain in a HS required course on Comparative Religion: a reduction in ignorance and fear.

I see a whole raft of problems with such a course: complaints from parents amd the community about how their faith is presented; attempts by students, teachers, parents or the community to co-opt the course so as to proselytize; students of minority faiths feeling bullied; parents like me who believe that teaching values is not a proper function of public schools; etc., etc., etc.

IMO, a required HS course of this sort is just not a good idea.
Eh, a reduction in ignorance outweighs a bunch of whiny parents and the like who probably need their own ignorance reduced. The idea that something immensely positive should be avoided because it might upset some people and has the potential to abuse just doesn't sit well with me. There's hardly anything positive in the world that doesn't come with potentially negative consequences and in this case, not pursuing education because of ignorance doesn't make sense.

Moreover, the very problem that you're illustrating in this thread - of some religious people's irrational perception of science - can only be effectively combated with education which is the very thing you oppose. Odd.
 
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).
Yes, he certainly did. I believe one point of reference was Alexandria.

One can do the same experiment and measurement today.

Those ancient Greeks were a crafty lot of people, well ahead of their time.

In fact, the worlds first computing device was traced back to about 200 BC, you may wish to check out the "Antikythera Mechanism" it's a very interesting bit of Ancient Greek technology
 
Yes, he certainly did. I believe one point of reference was Alexandria.

One can do the same experiment and measurement today.

Those ancient Greeks were a crafty lot of people, well ahead of their time.

In fact, the worlds first computing device was traced back to about 200 BC, you may wish to check out the "Antikythera Mechanism" it's a very interesting bit of Ancient Greek technology

I believe you are right, but I did not want to stretch my neck out. The Great Library would have been a logical starting place.
 
I'm sorry but I don't understand what "bright line" means

Poorly worded, pardon.

I meant that at the line between mineral and plant or other living organism, the division between what is "alive" and what is "inert" is likely far less rigid and impermeable than most would suppose.

So, as matter moves from an "inert" state towards an "alive" one, it doesn't fall of a cliff -- it slides down a hill, metaphorically speaking.

Am I right?
 
Eh, a reduction in ignorance outweighs a bunch of whiny parents and the like who probably need their own ignorance reduced. The idea that something immensely positive should be avoided because it might upset some people and has the potential to abuse just doesn't sit well with me. There's hardly anything positive in the world that doesn't come with potentially negative consequences and in this case, not pursuing education because of ignorance doesn't make sense.

Moreover, the very problem that you're illustrating in this thread - of some religious people's irrational perception of science - can only be effectively combated with education which is the very thing you oppose. Odd.

We can disagree; we both know, this country isn't ready yet to move towards the course you suggest. When that happens, I imagine most of my concerns can be addressed.
 
And before everyone goes down this facetious path of who admits wrong ideas first, let's remember that science and religion are not mutually exclusive

True, but some religious beliefs are mutually exclusive from science.

And people who view their religion through the lens of a particular belief will have a problem with science.
 
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.

That is true, but evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. Non-living matter that never had alleles cannot evolve. In a simpler term, evolution can only occurring in living matter (with the exception of viruses). The first life could not have evolved because there was nothing to evolve from. That said, life arising from non-life in certain scenarios is not impossible.
 
Poorly worded, pardon.

I meant that at the line between mineral and plant or other living organism, the division between what is "alive" and what is "inert" is likely far less rigid and impermeable than most would suppose.

So, as matter moves from an "inert" state towards an "alive" one, it doesn't fall of a cliff -- it slides down a hill, metaphorically speaking.

Am I right?

If you are talking about how life first came about on this planet, this is a reasonable metaphor. It was gradual not Poof it happened. If you are talking about anything else, then inert to living is not possible.
 
That is true, but evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time. Non-living matter that never had alleles cannot evolve. In a simpler term, evolution can only occurring in living matter (with the exception of viruses). The first life could not have evolved because there was nothing to evolve from. That said, life arising from non-life in certain scenarios is not impossible.

I agree with almost everything you say except your second sentence. If you apply physical evolution to this scenario then evolution did occur to create life. However, in most cases that scenario does not occur as far as we know.
 
Back
Top Bottom