Who invented Science?

LewisWildermuth · Jul 26, 2003

Oholiab said:
I stumbled into the evolution/creation thread and I wonder is anyone interested in discussing science in here. I dont think I'll get any argument that science is a human invention, even though it is worshiped and served like a pagan god.

Well Oholiab, science has actually helped Christianity get rid of paganism that had crept into it.

For example, not that long ago, priests use to send the bell boys to ring the church bells to ward off storms and lightning by showing God that there was a church in town and not to kill everyone. Now this did nothing to avert the storms and in fact killed many bell boys that wouldn't of died if they were not sent to ring the bells.

This was a pagan practice that had been adopted early in the church and was deeply rooted by this time.

Scientists like Ben Franklin and others helped to show what lightning really was and that eventually convinced the priests to quit ringing the bells during storms and getting their bell boys killed. But it was not an easy transition and there are many letters that declare this "new and evil science" to be of Satan and lightning rods and other safety practices that we take for granted works of the devil.

Science does not use God in any of their theories, not because it is atheistic, but because God has yet to allow Himself to be tested and is therefore an unknown that science can't deal with.

Science can only deal with things that can be tested.

TheBear · Jul 26, 2003

Oholiab said:
I stumbled into the evolution/creation thread and I wonder is anyone interested in discussing science in here. I dont think I'll get any argument that science is a human invention, even though it is worshiped and served like a pagan god. Science is about tools, its first and foremost a philosophy, originally it was called natural philosophy. The term 'science' is a word that simply means 'to know', there are two kinds of knowledge. The kind you know intellectually (theory) and the kind you experience (practice). Science is the kind you experience. Scientific theory is just established facts organized systematicly. Eventually these theories can be so well established that they are called laws, like gravity.

Mechanical aid

Francis Bacon developed the inductive approach to science as a systematic philosophy. Discrepancies in our perception of the world of sense have to be addressed using inductive reasoning. He believed that Our only remaining hope and salvation is to begin the whole labour of the mind again; not leaving it to itself, but directing it perpetually from the very first, and attaining our end as it were by mechanical aid. (Francis Bacon,1620). Science is about understanding controling the natural world. People are grossly ignorant about what science really is. If it can't be confirmed or denied by an experiment people think that means its not true. I'm constantly being attacked for saying that there is obvious, clear, and distinct proof for God's existance. Not only that God's divine nature has been revealed to everyone, its called natural revelation. At this point people start demanding empirical evidence like I'm supposed to come up with an experiment to prove it. There is no such thing as science, it is itself an intangable like numbers or time. Natural science on the other hand is what we learn about in school

Scientific evidence

Bacon developed the philosophy of natural science but it was Newton who actually established it. He did a lot of experiments with prisms. He wanted to prove that light was actually made up of seven colors. at that time it was belived that the colors from a prism were from the prism. Newton proved that anyone who did this experiment exactly like he did would get the exact same result and natural science was born. If thousands of years for now natural science has a Genesis account of its creation, Newton would be the first Adam.

If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment - the experimentum crucis - were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory. (White, the Last Sorcerer)

How do we know that evolution is true? How did they prove the law of gravity was true? How do we know either one of them is true? Lets ask the real question, how do we know anything for certain?

"even though it is worshiped and served like a pagan god."

Who are you talking about? :scratch:

"Eventually these theories can be so well established that they are called laws, like gravity."

Do you even know the process an idea goes through to even earn the title of a scientific theory?

"There is no such thing as science, it is itself an intangable like numbers or time. Natural science on the other hand is what we learn about in school"

Huh? :scratch:

"How do we know that evolution is true? How did they prove the law of gravity was true? How do we know either one of them is true? Lets ask the real question, how do we know anything for certain?"

"People are grossly ignorant about what science really is."

I would have reworded that last comment and say that some people are grossly ignorant about what science really is, and based on all your remarks here, I would include you in that group.

I see a strong bias in your post. You did not, for example, start out with the sciences that work for you on a daily basis - sciences that make this computer thingie work - sciences that cure people of diseases that were considered 100% fatal a mere one hundred years ago - sciences that produce more food on less land - sciences that produce medicine which you can get to ease your headache, to clear up your sinuses - sciences which produce antibiotics to fight off disease - xray machines which can quickly help a doctor determine if you have a broken, splintered or bruised bone - sciences which use MRI and CAT scans which can detect cancers and other abnormalities - sciences which alllow travel over a longer distance in a shorter time than by foot, horse or boat.

No... You showed your bias when you started out with one aspect of science - evolution - something you obviously disagree with, and since 99% of scientists support the theory, you bring on this wholesale attack on science in general.

The next time you reap the benefits of science, (turning on your lights at home, driving to work in an automobile, chatting internationally and instantly on you computer via the internet, going to the doctor or hospital for any reason, flying out of town to meet up with family, friends or co-workers, watching the news on tv.......I think you get the idea), ask yourself if you are "worshipping and serving science like a pagan god" - and if it's all just a bunch of, 'we don't know anything', like you portray in this post.

JohnR7 · Jul 27, 2003

LewisWildermuth said:
John, you are confusing science with scientists.

Science is a way of doing things.

If you define it that way, then everyone is a scientist. Even my wife, & the last thing I would consider her is a scientist. Yet she has a collage degree in social studies. So I guess that makes here a scientist.

LewisWildermuth · Jul 27, 2003

JohnR7 said:
If you define it that way, then everyone is a scientist. Even my wife, & the last thing I would consider her is a scientist. Yet she has a collage degree in social studies. So I guess that makes here a scientist.

John, did you even bother to read more than the first line of the post?

I am not saying that just because one used science or even performs a few rudimentary experiments that they are what we refer to today as scientists.

I will assume that neither you nor your wife make your livings by studying things scientifically.

But that does not stop us from being able to do experiments, albeit simple ones that can change the way we do things, just as the using some basic principles of science helped create and better agriculture thousands of years ago.

Therefore your previous post about science receiving more credit in our lives than it deserves is simply wrong.

The ability to think in a more scientific way is what separates up from the animals. It is scientific thinking that brought about irrigation and better farming methods. Without any science at all we would be simple hunter/gatherers. Unable to predict seasonal changes, to even cure or prevent the simplest of illnesses.

JohnR7 · Jul 27, 2003

LewisWildermuth said:
The ability to think in a more scientific way is what separates up from the animals. It is scientific thinking that brought about irrigation and better farming methods. Without any science at all we would be simple hunter/gatherers. Unable to predict seasonal changes, to even cure or prevent the simplest of illnesses.

Well, ok. If you think you have it all figured out, what seperates us from the animals, then just what do you think it is that seperates us from the God who created us?

LewisWildermuth · Jul 27, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Well, ok. If you think you have it all figured out, what seperates us from the animals, then just what do you think it is that seperates us from the God who created us?

I have never claimed to have it all figured out, only creationists are that sure of anything.

Well, first we would have to define what God is fully and no one has ben able to do that as of yet.

But for starters we can say that omnipitance is one of the biggies.

Oholiab · Jul 27, 2003

"Do you even know the process an idea goes through to even earn the title of a scientific theory?"

Actually I do understand that process, do you know where it came from. My main issue here is not with science per se but bogus arguments of science falsely so called. As far as scientists being in agreement about evolution, at one time they were all in agreement that the sun revolved around the earth, astrology was medical science, and bleeding people was therapeutic. Science has to have practical value and a paleontologist did not build my computer, or develop electricity, or lead Western Civilization out of the Dark Ages. Its a myth of modern science the experimentum crucis is the source of knowledge. Science should and does produce knowledge that is clear, distinct and certain, in and of itself. The evolutionist opted for obscurity over certainty," Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. (Darwin, Origin of Species). This kind of obscurity is not science its mythology.

Experimentum crucis was established as the litmos test for truth April 26, 1676. Thats where the first hypothesis was proven valid and became a theory. Do you even know where experimental method as the litmos test for natural science came from?

BTW: I have no idea what the problem is with my fonts or what to do about it. :scratch:

Gracchus · Jul 27, 2003

JohnR7 said:
Well, ok. If you think you have it all figured out, what seperates us from the animals, then just what do you think it is that seperates us from the God who created us?

As usual, JohnR7 misses the point. We are not separate from animals, we are animals. And what separates JohnR7 from God is mainly (IMHO) JohnR7's religion.

LewisWildermuth · Jul 27, 2003

Oholiab said:
Science should and does produce knowledge that is clear, distinct and certain, in and of itself.

That would be nice, but besides pure mathmatics I cannot think of a science that can do this. I am sorry if the world God made is not as clear as you would have made it. Maybe you can take this up with God and tell God how you would have done better.

The evolutionist opted for obscurity over certainty," Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. (Darwin, Origin of Species). This kind of obscurity is not science its mythology.

Okay then if you have found a clear and purely scientific reason to discount evolution tell us. If you do not have a clear and purely scientific reason than you are just as guilty of following "science so falsely called" as you claim the scientists are.

Arikay · Jul 27, 2003

I am still waiting to know which pagan god science is worshiped as?

Your right, science did believe the Sun revolved around the earth, when science discovered it didnt, who faught them? Certain religious people.

Sciece did believe creationism was how animals got here, when science discovered it wasnt, who faught them? Certain religious people.

So it funny you should mention science believing the sun revolved around the earth.

Late_Cretaceous · Jul 27, 2003

I did not pass any value judgement on any other lifestyle or technolgy. Indeed, the Yanamano Indians of the Amazon probably are perfectly happy as they are, and the environment around them is probably better off for it then it would be with condos and golf courses and strip malls. That being said, I am not about to move into the jungle. It sounds like you are John, so what is stopping you?

Late_Cretaceous · Jul 27, 2003

John. There is something to be said for the "Nobel Savage" idea. People living simple lives with their families, surrounded by nature. However, many hunter gatherer societies are very warlike, and the death rates among combatants is much higher then moden wars like WWII or Vietnam. And when the winning side does not make the losing side sign some treaty, then help rebuild their economy. No, they destroy everything and kill everyone except for the young women and girls. Also, child mortality is high - so your wife would have to give birth 4 times to be able to see just one child celebrate his 5th birthday. Then there are parasites, diseases, fatal injuries, genital mutilations, brutal initiation ceremonies, superstitions. So, maybe the Nobel Savage does not have it so great after all.

But if you prefer that kind of a lifestyle over ous. What is stopping you from persuing it?

JohnR7 · Jul 27, 2003

Late_Cretaceous said:
Also, child mortality is high - so your wife would have to give birth 4 times to be able to see just one child celebrate his 5th birthday.

It was pretty peaceful where my wife grew up at. She has 4 brothers and one sister and everyone is still alive and healthy. Her dad died when he was almost 70, because he got hit by a modern vehical. Her mom is still alive.

I suppose you could ask why did she leave. Maybe for the same reason half the amish children leave and go to join the modern world. She said she wanted to work to help her mom and family out. But a lot of the stuff she buys her mom just sits there. Her mom makes it clear that she would rather have her there at home then away sending her money. For example, she bought her mom a stove to cook on, sort of like a camping stove. But her mom still cooks over the open fire. She says that her fish tastes a lot better that way. They mostly just eat fish, rice, veggies and fruit. Also they have chickens so they will eat one of them every now and then, and the eggs. Then they raise a pig for special occasions. Her brother still uses a carabao to plow the field with.

Really, the big problem now is a shortage of land, so in some cases that forces people to leave and go to the city to find work.

JohnR7 · Jul 27, 2003

Late_Cretaceous said:
But if you prefer that kind of a lifestyle over ous. What is stopping you from persuing it?

We think about it, we talk about it. But I was raised in the city, so for me it maybe boring to move out to the country like that. I suppose I could find plenty to keep busy with, one project or another. We think about it, we talk about it, but so far have not make any plans. I have one friend who has built a house and plans to retire there.

Pete Harcoff · Jul 27, 2003

Oholiab said:
As far as scientists being in agreement about evolution, at one time they were all in agreement that the sun revolved around the earth, astrology was medical science, and bleeding people was therapeutic.

I notice you conviently forgot to include creationism in that list of yours. At one time, creationism was the prevailing view. But no longer.

Oholiab · Jul 27, 2003

"I notice you conviently forgot to include creationism in that list of yours. At one time, creationism was the prevailing view. But no longer."

Creationism was never a prevailing view even though it would have been considered common sense that God made the universe, and still is if the truth be known. Creationism like fundamentalism came as a response to the wholesale exclusion of God from anything remotly resembling science or education, even in seminaries. Just as Papal authority dictated the tenants of knowledge now its secular clerics. I have never seen the slightest indication that either system favors the Christian faith. Both were and are adamantly oppossed to it eventually the evolutionist infrastructure will erode and collapse, the way Romes did. Truth allways outlasts these trendy little myths.

Arikay · Jul 27, 2003

Check up on your history. Creationism was a prevailing view of science a couple hundred years ago. So was Noahs Flood.

Pete Harcoff · Jul 27, 2003

Oholiab said:
Creationism was never a prevailing view even though it would have been considered common sense that God made the universe, and still is if the truth be known. Creationism like fundamentalism came as a response to the wholesale exclusion of God from anything remotly resembling science or education, even in seminaries. Just as Papal authority dictated the tenants of knowledge now its secular clerics. I have never seen the slightest indication that either system favors the Christian faith. Both were and are adamantly oppossed to it eventually the evolutionist infrastructure will erode and collapse, the way Romes did. Truth allways outlasts these trendy little myths.

It's true that creationism in its modern form (as put forth by groups like AIG, ICR, etc) was not the prevailing view back then. However, the ideas of "special creation" (that is, each species or type of organism was created independent of each other), along with the idea of catastrophism (particularly the flood of Noah) were predominant ideas of the time.

However, these notions were falsified based on the available real-world evidence. That these ideas are somehow going to resurrect themselves following the demise of the current theory of evolution is just preposterous. You might as well argue that geocentrism will make a comeback, while you're at it.

Furthermore, the modern theory of evolution does not reject God as a creator. The theory of evolution can be 'true' and still have God as a creator.

TheBear · Jul 27, 2003

Oholiab said:
"Do you even know the process an idea goes through to even earn the title of a scientific theory?"

Actually I do understand that process, do you know where it came from. My main issue here is not with science per se but bogus arguments of science falsely so called. As far as scientists being in agreement about evolution, at one time they were all in agreement that the sun revolved around the earth, astrology was medical science, and bleeding people was therapeutic. Science has to have practical value and a paleontologist did not build my computer, or develop electricity, or lead Western Civilization out of the Dark Ages. Its a myth of modern science the experimentum crucis is the source of knowledge. Science should and does produce knowledge that is clear, distinct and certain, in and of itself. The evolutionist opted for obscurity over certainty," Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. (Darwin, Origin of Species). This kind of obscurity is not science its mythology.

Experimentum crucis was established as the litmos test for truth April 26, 1676. Thats where the first hypothesis was proven valid and became a theory. Do you even know where experimental method as the litmos test for natural science came from?

BTW: I have no idea what the problem is with my fonts or what to do about it.

Well, your remarks in this thread show that you don't have a real grasp of how science works. Tell me, what scientific theories in the past have been later falsified, and then reinstated as valid theories? I would love to know.

mark kennedy · Jul 6, 2015

Actually the advent of what we call science was the development of tools, from the telescope to calculus.

“If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment - the experimentum crucis - were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory.” (White, the Last Sorcerer)

Who invented Science?

Senior Veteran

NON-WOKED

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

HI

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Member

HI

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

NON-WOKED

Natura non facit saltum

Similar threads

<font color="#880000" ></font&g

<font color="#880000" ></font&g