Christianity and Creationism - some clarification
- Thread starter spudbynight
- Start date
Ok, thats all good and fine, yet completely deviated to what my original discussion on the scientific method was used for.
Now can you please explain to me, as the first post I replied to on this 'science bashing' topic, how is Medical Science 'likely as wrong' as religion, or how has it been of less usefulness to humanity than religion?
Your original post was incredibly vague, and any number of 'comprehensions' could be made from simply stating that 'Science is as wrong as religion'.
You make an awful lot of assumptions for a "scientist" where exactly in my 1st post did I say I was addressing anyone other than the original poster.
Where did I state that I am a scientist?
Not unless the exact scientific method we use today existed over 500 years ago, or prior to the 17th century. If it didnt then I am correct.
Is that a veiled and reluctant admission you are wrong?
Not unless the exact scientific method we use today existed over 500 years ago, or prior to the 17th century. If it didnt then I am correct.
Thank god for that you are bring them into disrepute. I suggest next time Waterstones do a 4 for £20 you skip the popular science and go back to Dr Suess.
Popper says 17th century scientific method is a bit faulty. Hence it is a evolved concept dating back over 1000 years.
The exact method we use today didn't exist in the 17th Century either unless people such as Popper and Kuhn were either several hundred years old or in possession of a Time Machine, so yeah, you were wrong.
You stated that the Scientific Method was created in the 17th Century based on a definition in a dictionary, this has been proven to be wrong when presented with extensive evidence and historical data......which prove that the Scientific Method is in fact a process that has developed over several thousand years and is still under development today.
Last edited:
So what you are saying is that the current scientific method definitely did not exist by the 17th century, therefore as you stated, it cannot be anywhere close to the 500 years old that you claimed it was
where from South Bank? (no offense to South Bank other than it was the lowest scored recently)Ok using bhavv logic
Human dna has been shown to change over time:
Therefore human dna is now slightly different from it was over 5000 year ago:
Therefore humans did not exist 5000 years ago.
The Uni I went to doesnt score very highly on the university tables, but the Biology department was ofstead inspected in my second year and awarded top marks and given a 10 year validation to carry on teaching without requiring any further checks, so it must have been fine.
No, because evidence of humans dates back further than 5000 years (I didnt study evolution so dont know much about this - when I went to uni I knew absolutely nothing about all the creationsm vs evolution debates, otherwise I would have definitely studied evolution).
Also you cant compare Human DNA to a method of study, thats a ridiculous comparison, as much as your statement that science is as wrong as religion
No, because evidence of humans dates back further than 5000 years (I didnt study evolution so dont know much about this - when I went to uni I knew absolutely nothing about all the creationsm vs evolution debates, otherwise I would have definitely studied evolution).
Also you cant compare Human DNA to a method of study, thats a ridiculous comparison, as much as your statement that science is as wrong as religion
Last edited:
Just out of interest, what final classification did you receive?
I think I've mentioned this a few times now?
First two years and on all my coursework I was averaging a 2:1.
Third year courseworks - straight B's in all my essays and presentations (2.1 average), sat the exams and all my module grades ended up averaging C+ (57-59%, not enough for a 2.1).
I had already decided to split my final year into two ahead of time (in my second or third month of the final year I made the part time split), but after missing a 2:1 average I didnt complete the rest and left with an ordinary degree as a 2:2 was just as useless to me as getting no grade was.
Also the uni didnt let me do the dissertation of my choice (simple allergy tests on blood samples or on the skin), so I had even less desire to complete it as I wanted to focus in immunology. They were also completely incapable of providing me with a valid alternative dissertation topic.
Last edited:
No, because evidence of humans dates back further than 5000 years (I didnt study evolution so dont know much about this - when I went to uni I knew absolutely nothing about all the creationsm vs evolution debates, otherwise I would have definitely studied evolution).
Also you cant compare Human DNA to a method of study, thats a ridiculous comparison, as much as your statement that science is as wrong as religion
Point made --- WHOOOOOSSSHHHHHH -------->
.
.
.
bhavv's head
I see. So effectively you failed your honours degree, but gained just enough to pass but not enough to gain a classification.
Fair enough. I don't recall you ever telling me that before, maybe it was before my time.
Erm no thats not how degrees work
I passed every module I took, but didnt complete enough modules for an honours.
You can split an honors degree into several stages - Certificate (first year completed), Diploma (first two years completed), Ordinary degree (first two years and half of the third year), Honours (all three years completed). You only get a classification if you complete all three years.
Dropping two modules and settling for an Ordinary Degree doesnt mean that the other modules were failed or that I did badly in them.
I passed every module I took, but didnt complete enough modules for an honours.
You can split an honors degree into several stages - Certificate (first year completed), Diploma (first two years completed), Ordinary degree (first two years and half of the third year), Honours (all three years completed). You only get a classification if you complete all three years.
Dropping two modules and settling for an Ordinary Degree doesnt mean that the other modules were failed or that I did badly in them
.
Last edited:
Erm no thats not how degrees work
I passed every module I took, but didnt complete enough modules for an honours.
You can split an honors degree into several stages - Certificate (first year completed), Diploma (first two years completed), Ordinary degree (first two years and half of the third year), Honours (all three years completed). You only get a classification if you complete all three years.
Dropping two modules and settling for an Ordinary Degree doesnt mean that the other modules were failed or that I did badly in them
I understand how they work Bhavv. As I said EFFECTIVELY you have failed in your honours degree (for whatever reason) and were awarded an Ordinary Degree because you had amassed enough CATS points in the modules you did complete. I would have thought that even a 2:2 would be preferable to simply being awarded an Ordinary Degree.....Why not just complete the two modules? I understand from prior conversations that you cannot work, would it not be beneficial to you and your prospects if you had completed the final modules?
Unless you are saying that you passed your Honours Degree and you were awarded such?
Also, degrees are not quite split in the way you said...they are based on CATS points, generally 120 points for each year, Ist year...Certificate (level 4 FHEQ). 2nd year.....Diploma (level 5). 3rd year....Advanced Diploma (level 6). It is the accumulation of these CATS points that decide whether you are award a degree or not, you obviously gained 300 CATS points, but not the 360 required for a full honours degree. Your average mark then decides further classification 40%-50% being a Third, 50%-60% a lower second and so on...
Last edited:
Such unnecessary attitude in this thread.
Oh come on, it's really not the end of the world. If someone has a misunderstanding, for example, casually referring to scientific theory as fact, then it really isn't worth crucifying them over. By all means explain your point, but don't go in all fire and brimstone with "total and utter abuse" like they have committed some sort of heinous murder.
Yes, there is no proof in science except maths, theory is not fact, scientific theory doesn't reveal the truth etc. But scientific theory is falsifiable, which gives it a fairly hefty weight for someone to decide on its likelihood of it being 'correct' or (loosely speaking) 'factual'.
In my opinion people are way to overzealous with the philosophy of science on here. It can go all the way and reduce debate to incredible pedantry.
No
Oh come on, it's really not the end of the world. If someone has a misunderstanding, for example, casually referring to scientific theory as fact, then it really isn't worth crucifying them over. By all means explain your point, but don't go in all fire and brimstone with "total and utter abuse" like they have committed some sort of heinous murder.
Yes, there is no proof in science except maths, theory is not fact, scientific theory doesn't reveal the truth etc. But scientific theory is falsifiable, which gives it a fairly hefty weight for someone to decide on its likelihood of it being 'correct' or (loosely speaking) 'factual'.
In my opinion people are way to overzealous with the philosophy of science on here. It can go all the way and reduce debate to incredible pedantry.
No
Last edited:
I had no motivation. I didnt want to do a rubbish dissertation where my topic was 'Show people pictures of things that cause allergies and see if it triggers an allergic response' (given to me by my dissertation supervisor).
I wasnt aware that I wouldnt be able to work a year after I finished uni, I entered a full time job at Asda while trying to find a simple tech support / call centre job (there were several such places available where I went to uni, but I didnt hear back from any of my applications). Failing that I was going to try and get a simple receptionist job at the NHS before I ended up getting too ill from my hearing + balance disorder.
I had no motivation at all to complete the final year of my degree. My lecturers tried very hard to convince me to complete it, but I just couldnt get myself to do a single thing towards my dissertation beyond the initial 500 - 1000 word research proposal to carry out an Eliza Assay test on blood samples, which was accepted by the university, but then declined by my dissertation supervisor because the equipment it needed was too expensive. TBH thats was probably a good thing, because if they had wasted however much it cost to get the kit in, I probably still wouldnt have had any motivation to do it.
I actually asked several times and went to the academic office to request if I could do a dissertation without any lab work or research involved (just 10,000 words written). The academic office told me that for an undergraduate degree I should be allowed to, but the head of Biology said that unless I did a proper scientific investigation including research work, I wouldnt even be able to pass with a D-. So I thought 'fudge it, cant be bothered'.
Last edited: