Conflict between religion and science

[Archie the Preacher]

See Archaeopteryx's comment.

Why? He is completely ignorant of Christianity and how it works. You endorse his ignorance? If you wish.

You won't question the idea the Bible is truth. That is religious thinking at work.

You won't approach the idea the Bible is truth. You're just as 'religious', 'dogmatic' and have just as much 'blind faith' in your preconceived notion as any zealot.

Um, I said it right here: "The scientific mindset demands us to be able to evaluate a situation and change our mind if new evidence/knowledge/circumstances present themselves"

You didn't say that in your original statement. So you're contradicting yourself. And for the absolute loss:

No scientist I've ever met is seeking the "ultimate answer" in a field.

Really? How many scientists have you met? You are confusing - among other things - the 'scientific method' technique with the goal of any research.

I do apologize for confusing you, LRLRL. You were confused enough prior to my comments.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why? He is completely ignorant of Christianity and how it works. You endorse his ignorance?

Considering the fact that I was a Christian for most of my life, and that I studied the religion considerably during that time, your comment here is not only presumptuous, it is incorrect.

That might mean something IF there were any truth in the premise. There isn't, so your conclusion is not only wrong, it's silly.

Care to explain why?

You won't approach the idea the Bible is truth. You're just as 'religious', 'dogmatic' and have just as much 'blind faith' in your preconceived notion as any zealot.

You are being presumptuous and projecting your own flaws onto others. Just because you have blind faith doesn't mean that everyone else does. Just because you cling to dogma doesn't mean that everyone else does.

 

[single eye]

LeftRight writes, "...what does the word christian even mean if you remove those tenets?" It means freedom from ignorance of our purpose.

LeftRight also writes, "no scientist I've ever met is seeking the ultimate answer in a field." Then you need to meet me. I am developing a process that would enable anyone to eliminate all toxins and deficiencies from their diet and experience perfect health. This is possible because we can prove cause and effect by the process of elimination, it's just not as dramatic, quick, simple, easy, profitable, and convienient as making up theories.

 

[WindStaff]

The Scriptures are before modern science. Science was used for practical things, but when it came to origins and why we exist, Scripture was the handbook.

God said "Let there be light" on the first day. Yet, common sense dictates that light comes from a source, so how could the first thing God created be light if God is not telling of the Big Bang?
If it wasn't divine revelation, then wouldn't the writer notice this conflict in not knowing about the Big Bang?

The Scriptures have been right for many thousands of years, it differs from science because it presupposes God where science does not, and if it's dishing out things that science otherwise didn't come up with for thousands of years, then that is in and of itself direct evidence of it's authenticity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The Scriptures are before modern science. Science was used for practical things, but when it came to origins and why we exist, Scripture was the handbook.

God said "Let there be light" on the first day. Yet, common sense dictates that light comes from a source, so how could the first thing God created be light if God is not telling of the Big Bang?
If it wasn't divine revelation, then wouldn't the writer notice this conflict in not knowing about the Big Bang?

The Scriptures have been right for many thousands of years, it differs from science because it presupposes God where science does not, and if it's dishing out things that science otherwise didn't come up with for thousands of years, then that is in and of itself direct evidence of it's authenticity.

You're being very selective in your reading of Scripture. In that same book (Genesis) God is said to have created plants before the sun and stars. The chronology is way off, literally by billions of years.

If the authors were as scientifically prescient as you claim they were, it is interesting that they never explicitly disavowed geocentrism and had nothing to say about relativity, quantum mechanics or inflationary cosmology. The Bible may have been "the handbook" in ancient times, but we know better today, which is why the Bible isn't usually considered a scientific text.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

The "only a theory fallacy".

"Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record." I am glad you are here to set us right on these things. Gravitational theory, atomic theory, germ theory, semiconductor theory. Your computer doesn't actually work, it is a scam to put money into the pocket of Steve Jobs.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

Welcome to CF!

Well, apparently you don't know what a theory is.

George Galord Simpson, a notable scientist himself, has said, "It is inherent that statements which cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything, or at the very least they are not science." (Gish 1985: 12).

Technically speaking, science can never "prove" anything as a "fact," rather it
can only say with some degree of certainty if whatever is being examined is true or not. The scientific approach for examining facts and determining truth is done in five steps. 1st) An observation is made.
2nd) A hypothesis is formed. 3rd) Data is gathered. 4th) The hypothesis is tested in light of the data, and
5th) if the hypothesis passes the test, it becomes a theory. However, new data is constantly being discovered and the hypothesis re-tested. This data either supports the theory or disproves it, but never
proves the theory as a fact (for future data could be gathered which disproves it). That is why science can never "prove" anything, only disprove things. If there is no way of testing or falsifying the hypothesis, the theory isn't accepted by the scientific community.


So, I assume you play cards? I assume you know the odds of drawing to an inside straight?

Tell me if you will the odds of all life stemming from a single asexual cell? Work it out and post your final figure.

Man it really sucks to have to go back and cut out even the links in a quoted post. I don't like the forum's approach to this at all. I may just give up on this forum it's too much trouble.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Technically speaking, science can never "prove" anything as a "fact,"

It can never prove a theory as a fact.

1st) An observation is made.

Those observations are facts.

It is a fact that, over geological time, the distribution of lifeforms on earth has changed.

Evolution, in this sense, is a fact.

The theory of evolution is an explanation for these facts. It is a very successful explanation.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

The "only a theory fallacy".

"Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record." [
I am glad you are here to set us right on these things. Gravitational theory, atomic theory, germ theory, semiconductor theory. Your computer doesn't actually work, it is a scam to put money into the pocket of Steve Jobs.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

If your plan here is to work your way through the entire Big Book of Fallacies, head on over to the forum, and jump right in.

Welcome to CF!

I do hope you feel better now after your outpouring of personal attacks upon my person. Very juvenile indeed. Grow up and get used to the fact that while you may drive a Ford, someone else might prefer a Nissan.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

It can never prove a theory as a fact.



Those observations are facts.

It is a fact that, over geological time, the distribution of lifeforms on earth has changed.

Evolution, in this sense, is a fact.

The theory of evolution is an explanation for these facts. It is a very successful explanation.

No. Evolution is a THEORY.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

What do you mean? You appear to be suggesting that it is highly improbable to leap from no eye to an eye in a single bound. That's right; that is extremely improbable. As Davian already elucidated, however, that's not how evolution works.[/QUOTE]

You are correct in that my link only dealt with mutation and natural selection. I readily admit there are other theories of evolution which my link did not address. I am at a disadvantage here since "that's not how evolution works" does in no way inform me as to just which theory of evolution you personally embrace. Perhaps were you to tell me how your particular theory of evolution works, then we could both be on the same page. Fair?

 

[Cearbhall]

No. Evolution is a THEORY.

There is nothing stronger than a theory. Certainly not religious logic, so I have no idea what you're thinking by saying this.

I do hope you feel better now after your outpouring of personal attacks upon my person. Very juvenile indeed. Grow up and get used to the fact that while you may drive a Ford, someone else might prefer a Nissan.

Discrediting science in such a way is not a matter of taste. It's a sign of willful ignorance and/or lack of knowledge.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No. Evolution is a THEORY.

It is both a fact and a theory.

Observation: Things fall down.
That is: Gravity is a fact.

Newton and Einstein both developed theories to explain the fact of gravity. Currently, Einstein's theory of gravity is accepted as the theory of gravity that is in best agreement with the facts (observations) of gravity.

Similarly, observations of the fossil record demonstrate that evolution (change over time) is a fact. Darwin and Lamarck both developed theories to explain the fact of evolution. Darwin's theory (in its modern improved form) is accepted as the theory of evolution that is in best agreement with the facts (observations) of evolution.

 

[Davian]

Well, apparently you don't know what a theory is.

Is semiconductor theory "only a theory"?

George Galord Simpson, a notable scientist himself, has said, "It is inherent that statements which cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything, or at the very least they are not science." (Gish 1985: 12).

Technically speaking, science can never "prove" anything as a "fact," rather it
can only say with some degree of certainty if whatever is being examined is true or not. The scientific approach for examining facts and determining truth is done in five steps. 1st) An observation is made.
2nd) A hypothesis is formed. 3rd) Data is gathered. 4th) The hypothesis is tested in light of the data, and
5th) if the hypothesis passes the test, it becomes a theory. However, new data is constantly being discovered and the hypothesis re-tested. This data either supports the theory or disproves it, but never
proves the theory as a fact (for future data could be gathered which disproves it). That is why science can never "prove" anything, only disprove things. If there is no way of testing or falsifying the hypothesis, the theory isn't accepted by the scientific community.

That would be a "strawman argument", an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.

I do not consider "facts" to be "proven". Is it a fact that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun? I believe it to be, but I cannot prove it.

So, I assume you play cards? I assume you know the odds of drawing to an inside straight?

Playing card analogies to not apply to evolutionary theory. Biology slowly builds on biology, it doesn't poof into existence (see: religion)

Tell me if you will the odds of all life stemming from a single asexual cell? Work it out and post your final figure.

The odds are 1. It happened, at least to the best that can be determined by the evidence at hand, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Man it really sucks to have to go back and cut out even the links in a quoted post. I don't like the forum's approach to this at all. I may just give up on this forum it's too much trouble.

I do not believe that it is contrary to the rules of the site to go to the Forum Number Games forum and run your post count up in a thread of your own.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

There is nothing stronger than a theory. Certainly not religious logic, so I have no idea what you're thinking by saying this.

Discrediting science in such a way is not a matter of taste. It's a sign of willful ignorance and/or lack of knowledge.

I agree that you do not understand what a theory is.

I probably use science as a tool as much as you do. I don't know what your expertise is but I am an electrical design engineer. I am also quite heavy into mathematics.

Science is a tool I use, it is not my religion though as it appears to be yours. I can compartmentalize.

 

[Davian]

The "only a theory fallacy".

"Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record." wiki

I am glad you are here to set us right on these things. Gravitational theory, atomic theory, germ theory, semiconductor theory. Your computer doesn't actually work, it is a scam to put money into the pocket of Steve Jobs.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

If your plan here is to work your way through the entire Big Book of Fallacies, head on over to the Physical & Life Sciences forum, and jump right in.

Welcome to CF!

I do hope you feel better now after your outpouring of personal attacks upon my person. Very juvenile indeed. Grow up...

I fail to see where in that post I made anything even resembling a personal attack on you. Perhaps you could elucidate. Or, look in the mirror.

If what you were looking for was an echo chamber, there are other forums on this site where your comments may not be critiqued.

and get used to the fact that while you may drive a Ford, someone else might prefer a Nissan.

I do not see how that analogy applies. Religion and science are in no way like preferences between car manufacturers. For instance, what does religion produce, with the billions of dollars that go into it every year?

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

It is both a fact and a theory.

Observation: Things fall down.
That is: Gravity is a fact.

Newton and Einstein both developed theories to explain the fact of gravity. Currently, Einstein's theory of gravity is accepted as the theory of gravity that is in best agreement with the facts (observations) of gravity.

Similarly, observations of the fossil record demonstrate that evolution (change over time) is a fact. Darwin and Lamarck both developed theories to explain the fact of evolution. Darwin's theory (in its modern improved form) is accepted as the theory of evolution that is in best agreement with the facts (observations) of evolution.

Is it hard to stay on topic. Let us at least attempt to debate one topic at a time without going all over the spectrum. The debate underway to my own understanding is the origin of life, not the law of gravity.

 

[Davian]

.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

Is semiconductor theory "only a theory"?


That would be a "strawman argument", an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.

I do not consider "facts" to be "proven". Is it a fact that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun? I believe it to be, but I cannot prove it.


Playing card analogies to not apply to evolutionary theory. Biology slowly builds on biology, it doesn't poof into existence (see: religion)


The odds are 1. It happened, at least to the best that can be determined by the evidence at hand, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

.

I doubt seriously if I know what semiconductor theory is since I am an electrical engineer. Why don't you explain it for me? I'm all ears.

Just to make it perfectly clear since you appear unable to complete such calculations, the odds are 1 in 10 to the power of 340million.
In other words, a total mathematical impossibility. You may prove my figure wrong should you wish to try.

 

[Cearbhall]

I agree that you do not understand what a theory is.

I probably use science as a tool as much as you do. I don't know what your expertise is but I am an electrical design engineer. I am also quite heavy into mathematics.

Science is a tool I use, it is not my religion though as it appears to be yours. I can compartmentalize.

I'm just an undergrad, and I'm not in STEM like you are, so I'm shocked that I have to tell you this. A theory is not "just" a theory, and science is not a religion. Compartmentalizing does not mean denying science when it pleases you to do so. I really don't know what else to say to you.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

I'm just an undergrad, and I'm not in STEM like you are, so I'm shocked that I have to tell you this. A theory is not "just" a theory, and science is not a religion. Compartmentalizing does not mean denying science when it pleases you to do so. I really don't know what else to say to you.

Then perhaps you should just say nothing? Stop listening to your liberal college professors and get an education.