Exploring the Harmony Between Faith and Science in Understanding Life

[Valletta]

An example of 'real science' and 'not real science' being...?

Real science is a subset within that environment. "Scientific method" is the most coined phrase. Generally you make a hypothesis, carefully and thoroughly test it, and then analyze the results. Putting aside bias can be difficult.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Real science is a subset within that environment. "Scientific method" is the most coined phrase. Generally you make a hypothesis, carefully and thoroughly test it, and then analyze the results. Putting aside bias can be difficult.

AKA -- science. We've got gobs of it. The journals are filled with it

 

[AV1611VET]

AKA -- science. We've got gobs of it. The journals are filled with it

Including junk science?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Real science is a subset within that environment. "Scientific method" is the most coined phrase. Generally you make a hypothesis, carefully and thoroughly test it, and then analyze the results. Putting aside bias can be difficult.

And an example of 'real science' and 'not real science' being...?

 

[AV1611VET]

And an example of 'real science' and 'not real science' being...?

Real science = combustion theory

Not real science = alchemy

 

[dlamberth]

Including junk science?

Kinda like Creation science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kinda like Creation science.

Creation Science is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Real science = combustion theory

Not real science = alchemy

My question was not directed at you so do not attempt to answer for another poster.

 

[AV1611VET]

My question was not directed at you so do not attempt to answer for another poster.

Then pm, instead of post.

They are like bullets and grenades.

Bullets are addressed "to recipient."

Grenades are addressed "to whom it my concern."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then pm, instead of post.

They are like bullets and grenades.

Bullets are addressed "to recipient."

Grenades are addressed "to whom it my concern."

That's not true in the slightest and you know it. Just because you have a constant need for attention doesn't mean I have to change my posting habits, nor does anyone else on this forum.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

many shcolars are full of pride and dont really even know the bible .

We all have our share of pride. But to say scripture scholars do not know the Bible is just not true.

 

[Astrid]

In my view, I believe in the harmony of religion and science, as I think that truth is found in both. One of my big struggles was the creation account of Gen. 1 against what is observed in the cosmos. For example, it seems fairly obvious to me that if we can observe supernova events hundreds of thousands of light years distance, even to 10 billion light years distant, that it is reasonable to assume that the universe is 13.8 billion years old as cosmologists have calculated. It seems reasonable that the Earth as a geological globe existed long before man's habitation of it starting 6k or so years ago. I had to come to grips with Gen. 1 not being a literal account of how God created everything; but it does cause a dilemma about certain statements in the Bible that God created the worlds in 6 days. It's a controversial subject, and there will be debates about it until kingdom come. I recommend this book, as it explains some things very well: Amazon.com

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that God has a way of making things happen without it being an out-and-out miracle (a miracle being something God does which is obviously outside the laws of physics). Could God have miraculously created everything exactly the way Gen. 1 depicts? Well, maybe, but that's not the point. The point is, HOW did God actually do it? This is the point of science, and why cosmologists try to calculate how old the universe is. I personally don't believe in macro evolution (man evolving from lower forms of life), because I don't see any evidence of it. All the so-called "evidence" has to do with miniscule changes, and is wildly extrapolated beyond all natural means, because all mutations have been observed as being detrimental to the life and health of the creature. Therefore, since there had to be a beginning of mankind, there had to be some sort of miracle that happened, like forming a man from the dirt and then breathing the breath of life into him. Whether this happened literally, or there was some evolutionary force that made man what he is today, the implication is that God directed the design of man and all other living organisms. Since "evolution" is not an intelligent force, the very nature of the narrative implies that God exists and guides it, because you can't get intelligence and order from chaotic processes.

I highly recommend this book:

Amazon.com

It's a very scholarly apologetic for understanding the role of God in creation.

As for not seeing evidence for evolution
that is only possible if
one never looks in the
right places

Is it not more respectful.to.at least look?

 

[Astrid]

Exactly my thinking, though expressed with much more gentility and diplomacy.

I should learn some diplomacy myself

 

[Astrid]

Again you fail to include anyone that comes close to your original slur:



Oppenheimer is dead, just like all of the specific scientists you named in an earlier post. Name a specific living scientist who is dishonest and why you think they are dishonest or retract your slur.

I can name one.

Dr. K. Wise, PhD,
Paleontology

 

[tdidymas]

As for not seeing evidence for evolution
that is only possible if
one never looks in the
right places

Is it not more respectful.to.at least look?

Why not rather look at the vast evidence against the idea of macroevolution? For example, the single cell of the simple yeast is so complex, having more than 5000 working proteins in addition to DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, enzymes, each with microsystems having information that makes it all work together. This is a living cell. The probability of all this coming together to make life is less than one chance in ten to the 79 billionth power. This fact is from the world's foremost nanobiologist Dr. Tour. This is not even to mention the massively improbability of all the other life needed to keep that cell alive and reproducing. Life from non-life is a ludicrous idea. Not only is there no evidence of abiogenesis, the evidence against it is so massive that any adherence to it is a fool's errand. It's been more than 70 years since the Miller-Urey experiment, and there has been absolutely zero progress in explaining how life comes from non-life. In fact, the more scientists discover about life, the further we get away from that hypothesis. IMO the reason why people can't accept the truth of the matter is because, as the Bible says, they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

 

[Gene2memE]

Why not rather look at the vast evidence against the idea of macroevolution? For example, the single cell of the simple yeast is so complex, having more than 5000 working proteins in addition to DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, enzymes, each with microsystems having information that makes it all work together. This is a living cell.

Is a simple yeast cell the earliest cell? Is a simple yeast cell the simplest possible cell? Do early life biologists believe that early life resembled a simple yeast cell?

Or, do biologists believe that there were multiple stages in the development of life before the first simple replicators came into existence and that a simple yeast cell is the end result of an unbroken chain of biological evolution stretching back more than 3.5 billion years?

The probability of all this coming together to make life is less than one chance in ten to the 79 billionth power. This fact is from the world's foremost nanobiologist Dr. Tour.

This is not a fact. A scientific fact is some result that has been repeatedly verified through experimentation.

What you're referencing is a probability estimate.

If Dr Tour - who is not a nanobiologist and is therefore automatically not the world's foremost one - stated this is a fact, he is wrong.

This is not even to mention the massively improbability of all the other life needed to keep that cell alive and reproducing. Life from non-life is a ludicrous idea. Not only is there no evidence of abiogenesis, The evidence against it is so massive that any adherence to it is a fool's errand.

Whenever someone uses probability calculations to claim abiogenesis is impossible, I would like them to reflect on the probability of the circumstances that led to their birth.

Once you calculate all the probabilities involved - like the chances of your parents meeting, rates of miscarriage, the likelihood of X sperm fertilizing Y egg on so on - and apply the same logic, you should conclude it was impossible for you to be born.

It's been more than 70 years since the Miller-Urey experiment, and there has been absolutely zero progress in explaining how life comes from non-life.

Well, that's just wrong. There has been progress made just this year. For instance, there have been some discoveries about the self-organisation of long chain polymers into protocells, due to the action of wet-dry cycles in both salt and fresh water.

In fact, the more scientists discover about life, the further we get away from that hypothesis.

Again, that's simply wrong.

For instance, NASA has just updated its Astrobiology Primer to incorporate the discoveries relating to potential pathways to abiogenesis made in the last decade.

https://www.liebertpub.com/toc/ast/24/S1

The update contains two chapters dedicated to topics around abiogenesis. The majority of references in these chapters are to papers published after 2016 (the last time the primer was updated)

IMO the reason why people can't accept the truth of the matter is because, as the Bible says, they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

"My opponent is wrong because they don't believe the same super special thing I do".

 

[Astrid]

Why not rather look at the vast evidence against the idea of macroevolution? For example, the single cell of the simple yeast is so complex, having more than 5000 working proteins in addition to DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, enzymes, each with microsystems having information that makes it all work together. This is a living cell. The probability of all this coming together to make life is less than one chance in ten to the 79 billionth power. This fact is from the world's foremost nanobiologist Dr. Tour. This is not even to mention the massively improbability of all the other life needed to keep that cell alive and reproducing. Life from non-life is a ludicrous idea. Not only is there no evidence of abiogenesis, the evidence against it is so massive that any adherence to it is a fool's errand. It's been more than 70 years since the Miller-Urey experiment, and there has been absolutely zero progress in explaining how life comes from non-life. In fact, the more scientists discover about life, the further we get away from that hypothesis. IMO the reason why people can't accept the truth of the matter is because, as the Bible says, they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

Confirming youve not seen because youve bever looked.

Cut n paste from a creationist site does not reflect
study or comprehension.

Else you'd know the falsehoods and nonsense for what they are and not call it vast evidence.

Even more to the point-
theres not one fact tp
disprove the theory.


Note the absence of world wide news and Nobel prize.

Yet you claim.to know more than any researchers on earth.

Calling dishonest and unrighteous those (christians included) who are better educated is a questionable practice unworthy of the righteous.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since this is the science section, I will correct some of your scientific errors.

Why not rather look at the vast evidence against the idea of macroevolution? For example, the single cell of the simple yeast is so complex, having more than 5000 working proteins in addition to DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, enzymes, each with microsystems having information that makes it all work together. This is a living cell.

A cell with 3 billion years of evolution from its ancestors has complex biochemical systems -- so what? That doesn't seem strange at all.

The probability of all this coming together to make life is less than one chance in ten to the 79 billionth power. This fact is from the world's foremost nanobiologist Dr. Tour.

1. 1 in 10^79000000000 is not a "fact". It is an unjustified calculated guess. It is built around (false) premises about spontaneous generation randomly from nothing at all.
2. James Tour is *NOT* a biologist of any kind. He is a (well regarded) synthetic organic chemist who make nanomachines.

This is not even to mention the massively improbability of all the other life needed to keep that cell alive and reproducing. Life from non-life is a ludicrous idea.

It really isn't if you don't frame it as "yeast cells arise from nothing" or some similar generation of modern single-celled lifeforms.

Not only is there no evidence of abiogenesis, the evidence against it is so massive that any adherence to it is a fool's errand.

The "evidence" against it seems only to be these "big number probability" calculations with no basis in reality.

It's been more than 70 years since the Miller-Urey experiment, and there has been absolutely zero progress in explaining how life comes from non-life.

Significant progress in origin of life research in recent decades. Much has been learned about natural processes making all of the needed building blocks of simple life forms.

In fact, the more scientists discover about life, the further we get away from that hypothesis. IMO the reason why people can't accept the truth of the matter is because, as the Bible says, they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness."

In rejecting the evidence from recent progress in OOL research are you then suppressing the truth in the matter?

 

[tdidymas]

Confirming youve not seen because youve bever looked.

Cut n paste from a creationist site does not reflect
study or comprehension.

Else you'd know the falsehoods and nonsense for what they are and not call it vast evidence.

Even more to the point-
theres not one fact tp
disprove the theory.


Note the absence of world wide news and Nobel prize.

Yet you claim.to know more than any researchers on earth.

Calling dishonest and unrighteous those (christians included) who are better educated is a questionable practice unworthy of the righteous.

Opinion, opinion, no facts. I'm done here.

 

[Astrid]

Opinion, opinion, no facts. I'm done here.

That's kind of rude.

And false