The whole point to science is that it CAN be falsified! You say that like it's a bad thing! if we find something that significantly explains our origin better than evolution and PROOF is found, then OMGPWND, science changes!
Science: We'll stick with evolution(gravity, light, insert every scientific theory here) until more and better evidence shows up.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
I agree.
I can't believe these people who say that scientists are hind information that would disprove evolution. The competition among scientists is way too high. If someone could disprove evolution, they would make a mint.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
The main argument is:
Theology <> Science
Theology
The study of religion, especially the Christian faith and God’s relation to the world
Science
The study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment
Evolution of the big bang, are not the problem. The problem is the way that Theology looks at Science in general. Because Science does not proclaim God to be the source of all things, some Christians reject it.
Sincerely, I think that many people talk about logic and reason without understanding it. I don´t agree with creationism but to argue agaisnt religion, we must understand all the consequences of what we are saying to not commit the same mistake of religion... and act just by faith in reason which is just one more philosophical point of view that needs to be assumed to be true, and is not absolute.
Did I not address this to you on another thread? Faith in reason is a "philosophical viewpoint" you're attaching to the scientific method and logos. However, what you're failing to realize is that having faith in the method of reason isn't blind faith. It isn't the same nature of faith. I can have faith that my car will start up in the morning, but this isn't blind faith; I know that my car is new, it has functional equipment, and I have the keys. I have plenty of justification for my car starting. Also, my car's started every single time I've used it. While this doesn't preclude that it could NOT start the next time, it's most likely that it WILL start based on all this knowledge and evidence I have to draw on.
Religion doesn't operate like that. Religion adheres to blind faith. There IS no evidence or justification for believing. Even the Bible isn't a convincing reason to believe. Religion would tell you that your car will suddenly start up just when you need it most against all odds despite never working on the first try in the past and lacking proper functional equipment, just because God is watching.
I think it was on this thread that we were discussing it before.
I agree that science is usually more accurate than religion, and I don´t think blind faith is a valid way of justification. But what I am saying is that logic or reason does not justifies why should scientific evidence be preferable. It independs of our opinions about science, personally I tend to agree more with science. Maybe faith is not a good word to use, but lets say intuition then, it is our intuition who justify science. I agree with you that there is a difference between faith and science, but it is our intuition that creates this distinction, not logic and reason. I mean.... this distinction, and the validity of the scientific method is not a logic inference, its not a conclusion, or a deduction, it is an assumption made valid with the use of intuition.
Take a look at epistemology, see justification of a belief... justification is the criteria you use to prove things, and empiricism is a BELIEF in a certain method of justification. You cannot self justify it. Beliefs need to be believed. Not that it makes science senseless as I already said, but it needs that you execute the action of "choosing to believe" in that.
__________________
Last edited by Atlantis001 on Mar 24th, 2006 at 03:29 AM
New thesis: There is no way to completely "prove" creationism with scientific facts, but there is also no way to completely "prove" any other theories with absolute fact either so it looks like we're all at a standoff.
__________________ Blog discussing politics, society, and current events! TOMORROW TODAY: A CHANGING WORLD
***> http://ttacw.blogspot.com/ <***
Boy there are some ignoramuses out there. Let me challenge a few of your assumptions in just a few words. I am a Christian (Mormon to be specific) I believe in God. I also tend to think that God uses natural laws to do his work. Meaning, I believe in Microevolution at least, and to a large extent Macroevolution. What I don't really buy is chemical evolution. I'd explain, but it might take a book.
As far as what you've been saying about ID. I think that there are really 2 "theories" using that name. One is just like everyone's been saying... a poor replacement for Creationism since they pretty much lost the debate in the science world.
The second is closer to real science, I'm not sure I'd say theory, more like observation. There are some things that just don't make sense with evolution right now. Maybe we'll find more evidence someday, but right now it doesn't exist. The principle of irreducible complexity basically says that some things just don't work right without all the parts. And as far as falsifiable, you just have to show that something that seems like it wouldn't work without all the parts would work with only some or one. Wouldn't even have to be the same function. Basically I look at irreducible complexity as the missing puzzle pieces. What good is actin without myosin and tropomyosin, along with atp, etc. What would the parts of a flagella do without the other pieces? and so forth.
And by the way, it is theoretically possible to prove God exists. You just have to see him, touch him, etc. Of course, then you'd have to convince him to let other people see him as well (results have to be repeatable). I can't however think of a single way to disprove his existence.
1- Like I said, missing puzzle pieces. I didn't mean to imply that macro or micro evolution weren't really evolution. I just meant I wasn't eating the whole pie.
2- God knows and assuming he exists I would guess he could prove it if he wanted to. And I would guess the prophets knew as well.
3- But we still haven't found the way, so until either God shows up and says, "what do you think of my handywork?" or we find some sort of intermediate that explains those parts, they're still missing puzzle pieces.
-edit-
about the pie, I'm the guy who cuts a slice and eats the rest of the pie
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
I’ve given a lot of thought to this topic.
A person who knows everything can learn nothing. So the best place to be is to not know. Often times we block the way to knowledge with false preconceived notions. The biggest one is “we know”. We do not know. The next one is “God can’t”. This is pure arrogance.
God is not hiding from us; God is all around us.
I will try to make it simple:
*God is unknowable.
..........Whatever is said about God is incomplete.
*Evolution is creation.
..........The theory of evolution is flowed, but whatever it is that we are seeing is floweless.
*Time is an illusion.
..........You cannot prove to me that there is a yesterday or tomorrow, they do not exist.
*There is no beginning or end.
..........We are born, live and die, but the universe and God are timeless.
__________________
Last edited by Shakyamunison on Mar 24th, 2006 at 05:22 AM
Probably you don´t even know what I am talking about. Before you start judging read our discussion to understand my point, or at least read something about subject(epistemology in this case) instead of just give the most simplistic and dumb interpretation.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 23rd, 2006 05:22 PM
jk
