Jump to content

Schouwenaars

Nonbeliever
  • Content Count

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

195 Excellent

1 Follower

About Schouwenaars

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 12/05/1997

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Flanders
  • Interests
    Judo, badminton, science (especially quantum mechanics), ancient greece, philosophy

Recent Profile Visitors

706 profile views
  1. Schouwenaars

    The Problem With Praising Famous Scientists

    I agree. The same situation with actors. Some actors get so much fame and are so adored, they risk discouraging kids who feel they can't live up to the lofty standards. You will disqualify the majority of people in science when they feel like they won't measure up. People should stop praising famous actors.
  2. Schouwenaars

    Interested in Christianity?

    Honestly, I always wonder that if faith is a knowing, why faith isn't called fact?
  3. Schouwenaars

    UK bans creationism as science in schools

    Hi Schouwenaars, You said “Personally, i think it a big step forward to a better education” It is telling that alternate positions are now prohibited under the guise of ‘science’. Clearly there is an agenda to forbid the teaching of critical thought in UK schools – otherwise they would permit the arguments and evidence from all positions; allowing their students to formulate fully-informed opinions. Many of the greatest discoveries in science have been made by scientists who had the courage to contradict the contemporary scientific consensus – but such ideas are now no longer permitted in UK schools. And yet they claim this is good for ‘science’. The prohibition of ideas echoes the worst of religious faith; having no logical, scientific merit whatsoever. In no logically objective sense can this be considered “better education”. Post #12 “I am supporting this, because if the large majority (like 90%) of the scientific world says creationism isn't scientificly correct, then we should not still teach that to children. If 90% of the people, who really know what they are talking about, say it isn't true, then we might make some changes in what we teach children” I have an alternate solution. Instead of prohibiting unpopular ideas, why not teach the students to think critically, provide them with a fair opportunity to consider all arguments and evidence so they can come to their own conclusions. Surely if this “90%” of scientists are right about creationism not being “scientificly correct”, then they have nothing to fear from giving fair consideration to alternate views. I don’t know where you get this “90%” figure, but if true, it actually means that 10% “of the people, who really know what they are talking about” disagree with the first group. It only takes the work of a single scientist to overthrow scientific consensus – so 10% is quite a bit. Also, science doesn’t deal with what is “true” or ‘right’ or ‘proven’. Such absolutist terminology is the language of faith and philosophy – not science. Science deals in probability and confidence; because we don’t know what we don’t know – and can therefore never legitimately claim scientific certainty. The reasoning you employ here amounts to an Appeal to consensus and an Appeal to Authority – both logical fallacies. My proposal would be to examine arguments, rather than avoiding arguments through logical fallacy. Hey Tristen, I find your post has very good arguments. However, i'm afraid i cant really agree with some. First: the idea of creationism itself hasn't been banned. It's not prohibed to believe in it. Those ideas will probably still be told in science classes, and be learned in religion classes, but the students now only have to study the other one. Critical thinking during the lessons is still allowed of course. It happens all the time. But you just don't have to study both now. By the way: only creatinism as science is banned in science class now. And maybe you can ask the same question but the other way around: why isn't the scientific thought teached during religion class as contrary to creationism to let the students think about it critticaly? Because science should stay in science class, and religion in religion class. Generally of course. Not totally. Then: most science is of course based on probability. However, when the probability of being right is very high( over 99.999%), it can be taken as right (with uncertainty left as sidenote). I think you believe that the earth is round and rotates the sun? Well, even that is still questioned by some people. And to be honest, that is actually still a theory. It has scientificly been 'proven', but so what? It remains uncertain on some level. It might have a chance of being right of like 99.9999999999%, but does that mean that mean we should teach the flat earth theory and all the others together in school? I don't think so. And as you said: it only takes one guy who believes in a flat earth to disprove the other theory. Besides that, religions (also christianity) often say their religion is infallible, and the others are fallible. But those things are only infallible inside their heads. They believe it is infallible. But notice the word 'believe'. Believing suggests uncertainty. They believe it, but they cannot know for sure. There is no way to prove something is infallible. Even when 'evidence' shows up, wether it is for a scientific theory or a religious one, you still have to believe and accept it. Science is the same fallible as religions. I hope my arguments are all clear to you. I apologise I cannot answer on all your arguments, but i'm afraid i lack time to do so. Further, i am not trying to make people stop believing. I only want to express my thought about it. I have no bad intensions.
  4. Because he held the post of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics from 1979 until 2009 at the university of Cambridge, i think he IS a brilliant mathematician. Btw: this post has once been held by Isaac Newton. Only the best can have it. Could you express yourself a bit more politely please? He has a Ph.D. of cosmology and he retains an office at the departement of Applied Maths and Theoretical Physics. His title is now Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology. So unless you call everyone in Cambridge University an idiot, I guess he is a little bit more than a high school dropout... He has done studies in many different fields. He hasn't done only maths.
  5. Schouwenaars

    Big Bang Proven False?

    I suggest you don't take anything literal at first, but that you start with interpreting all. Do you say that everyone who doesn't take the bible totally literal, isn't a christian? Because then there is only a tiny fraction left of everyone who calles themselfs christian in the world, especially europe. My parents, for exemple, are one of the most religious people i know personally. But they absolutely don't take the bible totally litteraly and they believe in the big bang and evolution. Even our priest does. And it is hard to say a priest is less christian than you. Because that's the only thing that matters in his life. He has totally sacrificed his life to god. More then 70 now. Btw: i can give some verses from the bible who can cause trouble when taken literal. Like this: http://www.ariel.com.au/jokes/Dr_Laura_and_Leviticus.html Please neglect the sarcasm in the letter. And don't start with saying: 'you should see that different' or 'he meant that different'.
  6. **Removed** And actually, heaven seems such a booooooring place to me. You have to spend eternally with the same people... It must get so boring after some time. And with wich mental age do we enter heaven? Do we have a body? If yes, of wich age? The people with a mental disorder, do they keep it in heaven? If someone is born with a healthy brain, but he gets mentally ill (like dementia), does he goes to hell with his healthy consiousness, or his last? If the soul isn't connected to the brain, how then do you think with your soul in heaven? Are you still the same person (mentally) in heaven? Some questions i ask myself about heaven sometimes, and from wich i have made my conclusions. **removed and removed link**
  7. I haven't got much time now and the coming weeks, so i cannot answer everything. Are they Absolutely Sure? If they would be sure, they would contradict themselfs of course. They have a strong believe it's true. DNA is no prove for the existence of god It's just one's THOUGHT that something has need of an intelligent almighty creator. It has been observed. But, what is your definition of observation? Because of course it hasn't been seen with someone's eyes of course. But if you observate that some stars are rotating around something, and that there is an interuption in the light of other stars there, you can conclude there is something there. And that thing has to have enough mass to hold all those stars, and has to be able to distrote light. Well, that is observation too. Well, if you say that is not observation, then this: if i trow a totally black ball in space, you will never be albe to obserate it, because it reflects no light that colides with it. You can only indirectly conclude there is something there that sucks all the light falling on it.
  8. Schouwenaars

    UK bans creationism as science in schools

    Nice try from you too Cletus, but this article is written by a christian who expresses his OWN tought in that specific sentence. He himself thinks that. But that doesn't mean evolution is now the only 'opponent' in those schools.
  9. Schouwenaars

    Big Bang Proven False?

    Unless you one takes every word in the bible litterally, one can perfecly believe in the Big Bang AND being christian at the same time. Because then it's only a matter of what YOU believe god has done, how and when. And one can be a christian without taken the hole bible litterally.
  10. ~ Beloved, Gravity Is A Property Of Mass And Without The Earth Or The Sun Or Atoms Or Any Other Mass, Gravity Does Not Exist ~ God Is Dead! ~ Nietzsche Nietzsche Is Dead! ~ God And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Hebrews 9:27 Why do you quote Nietzsche? And the last quote was meant as a joke, so i hope you didn't meant that serious.
  11. My problem isn't that science is an ever-evolving creature. My problem is science is PUSHED onto kids and people as if it's absolute fact when it's far from being fact. But if you do not accept what science says is fact, you're an idiot who cannot be taken seriously. So it's like science pushing that their models of the atom is perfectly correct and anyone who disagrees is an idiot...then they later change it. And change it again and again. How do you know the current model won't be tweaked again? Science makes all sorts of claims about things they have no idea if they exist or not. They have a whole lot of faith. They cannot tell us how we got here, how the universe started or any such thing, but I remember being told of the big bang and abiogenesis and all sorts of things that turned out to be incorrect. I cannot just accept *facts* when the *facts* change. What is a fact and what not is more a philosophical then a scientific or religious question. Some people believe facts don't even exist. Besides, i think you're taking the word science too large. Because calculating the warmth of a chemical reaction is also science, and i think that can be quite correct. Science doesn't say it has all the answers or that it is totally proven. It says it has a (often the most likely) explanation for something. And when, for exemple, a test with observation has been done, and the chance that the results are wrong is 1/3.4million (sigma 5 signal, scale used in certain tests), i think you may assume you are close to the right thing. The atomical model has been specified, not proven false. If i first say it has a core surrounded by elektrons, and later i say the core exists of neutrons and protons, my first thougth wasn't wrong. it has only been specified. And i can say too that christianity is PUSHED onto children and people as if it's absolute fact when it's far from being fact. Christianity is even more about faith than about certainty. As long as the existence of God cannot be proven, nothing about christianity can be seen as fact or absolute truth. It's not science AGAINST christianity. It shouldn't be. Science helps everyone a lot. Btw: big bang doesn't turn out to be incorrect yet.
  12. Schouwenaars

    UK bans creationism as science in schools

    The students can still read and chose any book they want. The only thing that is forbidden now is that creationism is teached to be scientificly proven, and that it is involved in science lessons as science. During lessons like religion or whatever, students still learn what it is, so that they will be able to make their own choice. I am supporting this, because if the large majority (like 90%) of the scientific world says creationism isn't scientificly correct, then we should not still teach that to children. If 90% of the people, who really know what they are talking about, say it isn't true, then we might make some changes in what we teach children. I do not say that people may not believe in it. Only the scientific base falls. And indeed, i can see the wisdom in some of it. Evolution isn't scientifically proven and it isn't science. Evolution is by definition a "religion." I think I didn't mention evolution somewhere on this topic, did I? My topic has nothing to do with evolution(theory). My point is that saying creationism isn't science is meaningless given that the alternative (evolution) isn't science either and isn't scientifically proven and can never be scientifically proven. The article doesn't say either that now evolution is going to be teached by science. And evolution isn't the only alternative view on the world i guess. They just keep creationism in church now. Science can be given too without religion.
  13. Schouwenaars

    UK bans creationism as science in schools

    And indeed, Other One, creationism is still tought in those school. But just not as science any more. I find that an approvement.
  14. I can perfectly think in AU, thank you. But maybe it might help the others. I know very well that gravity is a very weak force compared to the others, and I didn't say it was strong. I just tried to make clear that something is still a lot more than nothing. Something is still infinitly more than nothing.
  15. Schouwenaars

    UK bans creationism as science in schools

    The students can still read and chose any book they want. The only thing that is forbidden now is that creationism is teached to be scientificly proven, and that it is involved in science lessons as science. During lessons like religion or whatever, students still learn what it is, so that they will be able to make their own choice. I am supporting this, because if the large majority (like 90%) of the scientific world says creationism isn't scientificly correct, then we should not still teach that to children. If 90% of the people, who really know what they are talking about, say it isn't true, then we might make some changes in what we teach children. I do not say that people may not believe in it. Only the scientific base falls. And indeed, i can see the wisdom in some of it. Evolution isn't scientifically proven and it isn't science. Evolution is by definition a "religion." I think I didn't mention evolution somewhere on this topic, did I? My topic has nothing to do with evolution(theory).
×