Ron Paul Naysayers. Put this in your chamber and fire it!

[Squib Joe]

But at the end of the day science is as faith based as religion.

You're trolling, right? Right?

If one looks at certain aspects if "science" they're really not that believable without faith

Yeah, you have to have faith in that whole "mathematics" and "physics" thing.

[illbits]

Mathmatics and science are both based on logical axioms, which are essentially faith based assumptions. I agree mathematics and physics are more impressive then zombie jesus but if science has taught us anything it's that we really don't know much. ;D

[Spike]

I'll just leave this (http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteArchives.aspx?Archive=1) here and move on.

[Holland&Holland]

Mathmatics and science are both based on logical axioms, which are essentially faith based assumptions. I agree mathematics and physics are more impressive then zombie jesus but if science has taught us anything it's that we really don't know much. ;D

Ya, cause that gravity thing is just a guess... and the earth is flat.

[Heffay]

Mathmatics and science are both based on logical axioms, which are essentially faith based assumptions. I agree mathematics and physics are more impressive then zombie jesus but if science has taught us anything it's that we really don't know much. ;D

Err... mathematical proofs aren't faith based assumptions. But nice try.

[Spike]

Some guy told me that Ron Paul is against gravity! He said so in the 70's.

[Hanns]

Why is the "Conservative" establishment trying so hard to demean and demonize someone who should be their best hope? Someone who doesn't just talk about small government but has consistently voted for it. Someone who votes for restricting the government to it's legal, Constitutional limits. Someone who puts forth legislation to audit the Federal Reserve and get currency back to something other than smoke and mirrors? Why would they attack someone like this? Is it because they're profiting just as much from the corrupt system as the "left" is? Maybe?

[goett047]

[quote="illbits"]But at the end of the day science is as faith based as religion.

You're trolling, right? Right?

If one looks at certain aspects if "science" they're really not that believable without faith

Yeah, you have to have faith in that whole "mathematics" and "physics" thing.[/quote]
You cannot tell me that any belief that a particular theory of origin is true can happen without faith beyond proven science.

[illbits]

Err... mathematical proofs aren't faith based assumptions. But nice try.

mathematical proofs are based on faith based assumptions, just like all forms of logic.

In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow (otherwise they would be classified as theorems).

[illbits]

You cannot tell me that any belief that a particular theory of origin is true can happen without faith beyond proven science.

Nope, it takes a leap of faith to believe a working model or a theory is a fact.

[Squib Joe]

Nope, it takes a leap of faith to believe a working model or a theory is a fact.

It takes empirical evidence and objective reasoning, not faith.

And I'm not against faith. I think faith is one of the best things about any religion, and helps people the most.

[Jeff Bergquist]

Some people seem to have a misunderstanding of what science really is. It's not a philosophy or set of beliefs that claims infallibility, it's a working system for collecting data and finding or creating theories that best fit the data that's been collected. Scientific theories therefore get junked as soon as it is proven that they don't fit all the facts that are known. Every currently accepted scientific theory, from evolution to the big bang, has the implied subtext of "This is possibly/probably not the final absolute truth, but it is what best fits the facts as we now know them."

This is why any other set of beliefs, such as creationism, whether it actually winds up being the deeper "Truth" or not, must not be taught as science unless it is testable and can be fitted to the known data.

[illbits]

Well said Jeff! The only thing I would differ with you on is your initial statement. The data seems to suggest that MOST people don't understand what science is (as you have properly described it). I'm pretty sure that the majority of scientists I know or have met have deluded themselves into thinking that working theeories are proven undeniable facts. That is until the latest research disproves their models and they adopt new theories they dillude themselves into believing are proven facts. But regardless you illustrated the point I was trying to make perfectly and I am in definite agreement with your statement. The way i see it, we have gathered massive amounts of usefull data and discovered we have a LOT to learn and the universe remains a profound mystery.

[Heffay]

illbits, I think he's arguing directly against what you said. Science doesn't take faith. Faith in fact is the exact opposite of what science is all about.

[Dick Unger]

It's both funny and sad that "science" has become political.

If someone says that the earth is flat, both Fox and NPR would do a story saying "What do YOU think?" and then bring in an athiest left wing kook to tell us the earth is round. The "mainstream media" (if such exists) would sponser polls anthe matter, and chart how opinions are changing over time.