Kris
Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011
|
| Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,23:29) | To illustrate for all to see how Kris slowly degenerated into the lunatic we know him to be now, let's look back at Panda's Thumb nearly two months ago.
http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240311
| Quote |
Kris replied to comment from Lamar | December 3, 2010 9:40 PM
I think it’s reasonable to say that a scientific theory may be intended as a rejection of, or disagreement with, a religious belief. But, it’s also reasonable to say that many scientific theories are put forth without considering religious beliefs at all.
<snip>
In the commonly accepted sense I don’t think that faith in science is “religious”. However, I do believe that scientists and many laymen do have faith in science. I have faith in science but not to the extent that I automatically and unquestionably swallow whatever science cooks up.
|
http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240354
| Quote |
harold | December 4, 2010 10:08 AM
Kris -
You seem to take an interest in the discussion here, but you also seem to lack some background information about science and creationism.
Everyone makes mistakes and has things to learn. I have made plenty of mis-statements here and in other places. When someone points it out, I learn.
I’m going to give you a chance to do that right now.
Some people can learn and grow, others have artificially inflated yet fragile egos, and become defensive when challenged, even in a positive way. I only mention this because the latter sort of people are so common on the internet. I hope you belong to the former category. We will now find out.
There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs.
I noticed in my youth that I do instinctively hold certain assumptions. I assume the physical world exists, I assume my senses detect aspects of it, I assume other human beings exist, I assume that their senses detect aspects of the same physical world, and I assume that the axioms of logic, although having no physical existence themselves, should be used in evaluating physical reality. Therefore I prefer the scientific method for evaluating physical reality.
Scientific claims should always be viewed critically, with skepticism. No-one should “swallow whatever science cooks up”. To do so would be, in fact, unscientific. Sometimes scientific ideas initially get too much credit, because they are advanced by a prestigious source or seem especially exciting. But this is a mistake.
Having said that, please specifically explain which scientific observations, hypotheses, experimental results, or theories you dispute, and why.
|
http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-240429
| Quote |
Harold, your responses have little or nothing to do with what I said.
Just one example: I was referring to the simplicity of the phrase “evolved from matter” in the sense that the phrase isn’t explanatory enough to necessarily describe how “evolutionists” (or any scientists for that matter) may feel about how the universe began. I was not referring to the concept or theory of evolution itself.
I think that Lamar’s comments are worth some consideration, as he stated them, and I tried not to read things into them that are not there. You might try to do the same with my comments.
|
Later....
http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241116
| Quote |
Kris | December 11, 2010 1:22 AM
harold said:
“There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs.”
Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?
|
http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241117
| Quote |
Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 1:42 AM
Are you sure about that Harold? Would you like to revise those statements?
no, he need not. It’s an absolutely accurate statement.
I think you might be confusing the intent and content of a scientific theory with whether or not the results of testing that theory provide evidence that contradict specific claims made of religions.
Evolutionary theory does not, and is not intended to, address any religious statement.
We have, however, in testing the theory over decades, found that many specific religious claims are unsupported.
likewise with relativity theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of heliocentrism, etc, etc, etc.
your understanding of science seems relatively poor to be trying to play “gotchya” games.
|
http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241121
| Quote |
Kris replied to comment from Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 2:52 AM
It’s not a game, and you’re not Harold, or are you?
Just to be accurate, which one of Harold’s statements (that I quoted) are you referring to?
|
http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-241123
| Quote |
Ichthyic | December 11, 2010 6:22 AM | Edit
one, this quite obviously IS a game to you, and has been since you first started posting here.
two, you don’t get to control who responds to your posts.
three, it was quite clear to anyone with half a brain exactly what I was responding to, based on what I posted.
man, the nutters here are getting too damn thick.
|
You may read the rest of that thread, but I posted these bits here to show where I think the trouble with Kris got started.
BTW, I thought Harold's statement "There is no scientific theory that is intended as a rejection of a religious belief. Science ignores religious beliefs." was indeed obviously true. When Kris challenged it, I was astonished and also wondered what the hell he was doing. Soon, we all found out! |
Hey Dale-boi, thanks for the plug, but you left out one of the most important posts of mine. You know, the one with the quote from Darwin. You're not trying to get people to take things out of context, are you? Nah, you'd never do anything like that. You're too "honorable" to do that. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!
Nice try at quote mining though. Too bad that it makes you look like a desperate douchebag.
--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato
|
