whatever said: mmnin said: kenzomatic said: I completely understand a scientists aversion to ID and creationism. Science as a whole was set back centuries in the middle ages due to the pope and his minions. Galileo was sent to rot in prison till his death for simply stating that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Vigorously defending scientific principals against ID (which is simply creationism disguised as science) is simply a response to centuries of repression. A time I hope we never revisit. Scientific discovery is responsible for most of the conveniences we now have. This includes video games BTW. So if you love video games, creationism is not for you.

I heavily believe in scientific discovery. But when it has actually found something, not when it "thinks" it finds something. When science "thinks" it finds something, then we should be able to "think" about it as well as other things. This is different than proving the existance of wireless signals as we can definitely prove existance by the receptions we recieve, or creating an infrastructure for a computer to understand input, as again we see it works through the results, etc. This is about an idea of what has happened to the earth's past, something that none of us were around to observe.

As far as scientists being apprehensive toward ID, have you ever considered that the tables have turned and people who believe in ID might be the Galileo or Columbus of today? What if none of these beliefs are correct and today's Galileo or Columbus has yet to be found? What if someone came to you and said that Gravity didn't exist and that it was just a reaction of the combination of every movement of our solar system? Would it be fair to say that he is crazy? What if he was the only one right? What if we found out thousands of years from now, given we are still living as a species, that an Alien came to our planet and cultivated it similar to what we have thought about with mars or some other distant planet and that occasionally they come back to check on us. Who really knows why we came about? There are lot of ideas and THEORIES. Some are more easily in front of us than others, but that doesn't mean ANY of them are any more accurate or plausible than the others, because you JUST DONT KNOW. Sure we would like to just label everything and call it a day. That would be easy and scientists do it all the time, but they are wrong much of the time as well. Even Einstein's theories needed tweaking. Nothing is set until you have direct contact with what is in question, and that just has not happened on a grand scale with Evolution. It is just the most popular among scientists, but that doesn't mean you have to bend over so they can shove it up your butt.

 

whatever said:   It not even that scientific progress was slowed or stopped during medieval times. Its that we went backwards hundreds of years. The Greeks and Romans were far more advanced civilizations than anything up until the Renaissance. We lost alot of knowledge during this time period. Religion played a central role in this process.

This is true with a lot of great civilizations in the past. If a serious nuclear war wiped out America some of the knowledge would be more useful to the common person than others. For example most individuals doesn't have the ability to make a refrigerator on their own so they would have to go back to using an ice box. Without the printing press when a civilization falled then so did some of it's knowledge.

Smidlee said: People of the future could just as easiler call the 20th century the "Dark ages" as we had two great World Wars. Now we got extremely powerful weapons so who know what this century will bring yet.

 You clearly have no idea what the dark ages are or what the term means. The dark ages are a time in which scientific and other forms of progress seized and much of the history of the time was not recorded due to the lack of writing apart from monks. Thus its 'dark' as we don't really know much about it, and because much of the information from before that time was lost.

Now in the 20th century we had huge scientific and other forms of progress and history was documented, recorded, analysed and spread like never before. Its as far from the dark ages as the human race has ever been.

 War has nothing to do with the dark ages.

Rath said: Smidlee said: People of the future could just as easiler call the 20th century the "Dark ages" as we had two great World Wars. Now we got extremely powerful weapons so who know what this century will bring yet.   You clearly have no idea what the dark ages are or what the term means. The dark ages are a time in which scientific and other forms of progress seized and much of the history of the time was not recorded due to the lack of writing apart from monks. Thus its 'dark' as we don't really know much about it, and because much of the information from before that time was lost. Now in the 20th century we had huge scientific and other forms of progress and history was documented, recorded, analysed and spread like never before. Its as far from the dark ages as the human race has ever been. War has nothing to do with the dark ages.

 Yes i do know why it's called the dark ages. Again as I pointed out before the printing press if a civilization/ government falls then so does a lot of it's knowledge. So yes war has everything to do with it.

 

Smidlee said: People of the future could just as easiler call the 20th century the "Dark ages" as we had two great World Wars. Now we got extremely powerful weapons so who know what this century will bring yet.

Chances are they'll look at the huge advancements made in radio waves, light technology, atomic energy, astronomy, space travel, etc. and realize just how many improvements were made during the past century.

mmnin said: As far as scientists being apprehensive toward ID, have you ever considered that the tables have turned and people who believe in ID might be the Galileo or Columbus of today?

That is insanity. The entire difference between ID and scientists is the quest for knowledge.

Scientists are constantly testing, checking, and changing their opinions on various matters. Believers in ID still hold fast and true to a book that was written when the scientific community still believed that mice spawned from rotten fruit like maggots.

One has shown a bit of progress over the past 1500 years. The other still holds true to that 1500 year old book.

Comparing a man like Galileo or Columbus (seriously, did he really even do anything?) to ID supporters is not only insulting, but patently false. 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp

read

rocketpig said: Smidlee said: People of the future could just as easiler call the 20th century the "Dark ages" as we had two great World Wars. Now we got extremely powerful weapons so who know what this century will bring yet. Chances are they'll look at the huge advancements made in radio waves, light technology, atomic energy, astronomy, space travel, etc. and realize just how many improvements were made during the past century.

They more likely judge us like we love judging those in our past. Again even the Dark Ages wasn't all that dark, it's the dark side which get our attention.

 So in the future if they are anything like us they will focus on the wars just like we do.  

Smidlee said: rocketpig said: Smidlee said: People of the future could just as easiler call the 20th century the "Dark ages" as we had two great World Wars. Now we got extremely powerful weapons so who know what this century will bring yet. Chances are they'll look at the huge advancements made in radio waves, light technology, atomic energy, astronomy, space travel, etc. and realize just how many improvements were made during the past century. They more likely judge us like we love judging those in our past. Again even the Dark Ages wasn't all that dark, it's the dark side which get our attention.  So in the future if they are anything like us they will focus on the wars just like we do.

The Dark Ages weren't that dark? Then WTF happened during those 500 years? Scientifically, the age actually put man in reverse. Not only was little knowledge gained but much of the previous knowledge was lost.

You're grasping at straws. 

rocketpig said: whatever said: It not even that scientific progress was slowed or stopped during medieval times. Its that we went backwards hundreds of years. The Greeks and Romans were far more advanced civilizations than anything up until the Renaissance. We lost alot of knowledge during this time period. Religion played a central role in this process. My point exactly. It's not a coincidence that during the period when religion held more sway over people than any other time in the past 2,500 years, scientific progress didn't only stop but it actually went in reverse for several hundred years.

I disagree. It's not like religion just suddenly took over and everyone got stupid. The fall of the Roman Empire is what I attribute to both religion taking more control and scientific progress collapsing.
The splitting up of city states did far far more damage to scientific progress and well everything. This occured well before religion was a driving force and actually at the time reliegion was less of a driving force then it had been under the old roman empire. Including economy which in turn effect science since back then a lot of science was just conducted by people who liked to research with out there being much monetary ties. Not to mention things like libraries and academys cost a pretty penny and a strong infostructure.

That and the fact that even before hand things were slipping out of hand in some fields. For example the medical communty. After Galen it seems roman medical science hit a brick wall as everyone took him as the definitive soruce and that nothing more could be figured out... and his knowledge kept lost.

To be fair though, I do believe Christians did abolish what surgery survived i believe. However they still supported the teachings of Galen. (What survived)

Not sure I can blame people though Galen was a freakin genius though as he was a brain surgeon and eye surgeon... and also had the basics of germ theory down. Or at least understood the point of sterlization before anyone else. Man was waaaay ahead of his time.

The historical evidence seems to show though that it was the breakup of the infastructure that promoted scienftific achievements is what lead to the dark ages and not the rise of religion.

If anything, I think it would make more sense to say the rise of religion happened because of the breakdown of science.

In the High middle ages technology and science actually started to right itself again as far as i can tell.

So the real question is... is it any coincidence that a time dominated by religion followed a period where technology took big steps backwords.