Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 189 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
Yesterday at 02:22 AM
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 7
True 1
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#15636 - 10/20/06 06:17 AM God & science
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
So trilobytes, does God like science?

Regardless of my belief in that overwhelming supremeness, so incredibly deep and pervasive, enveloping with comfort, solace and awe; from under the center to beyond the edge of everything including truth, intention, wisdom, and love; and still regardless of any faith, I can appreciate the tool that science is; the tool that brings the outside in to my comprehension coherently, the tool that allows for discovery and invention, the tool that facilitates a sharing and wonder, forever expanding, and the tool that every day makes our lives more possible. I can revel in and enjoy science, regardless.

~Samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
.
#15637 - 10/20/06 07:03 AM Re: God & science
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Wow, I can't believe I posted this before the Colbert Report's interview at the end of the show. I didn't catch the name of the guy, but it was about science & religion. It wasn't that great of a presentation, but I could see what he was trying to do.

I wish Stephen had taken the guy up on his offer to trade his Nobel Prize for two weeks of taking over the show to make science more understandable to the public.

~~Samwik

P.S. I guess there is a difference between God and religion. As for religion and science:

Isn?t religion just a way of taking our understanding of God and making it meaningful in the outside world, making it manifest; and isn?t science just a way of taking the outside world and making it understandable, making it meaningful. Does one preclude the other? ~S
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#15638 - 10/20/06 06:40 PM Re: God & science
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
Does God like science?

YES

Does God like what the evos are doing with his science?

NOPE.

Top
#15639 - 10/20/06 07:51 PM Re: God & science
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
Originally posted by trilobyte:
Does God like science?

YES

Does God like what the evos are doing with his science?

NOPE.
So why not? How is what "evo's" do any different from what physicist's do. They are just using a tool to look around in a systematic way.

For instance, Einstein's relativity theories aren't "truth," but as tools they do approximate reality very closely; close enough to be very useful in making predictions in our everyday world. And if it's not a close enough approximation, then there are lots of scientists anxious to point out any problems.
Similarly, as Darwin's evolution theory is not any absolute truth, it still functions well as a tool to help us predict, as well as helping us communicate ideas in a common framework and helping us organize our own understanding.
Einstein's theories still work, even if they might be totally wrong about the universe being over 4000 years old. Evolution still works well as a tool for us to use, even if it might be totally wrong about some of its basic assumptions. That's why it's called a theory.
Thanks,
~Samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#15640 - 10/20/06 08:01 PM Re: God & science
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Straight from God's brain to TB's fingertips.

Top
#15641 - 10/20/06 08:02 PM Re: God & science
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
TB wrote:
"Does God like what the evos are doing with his science?"

And you know this how?

Did she tell you this by email? text message? wrote it on the inside of a box of breakfast cereal?

Please be specific.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#15642 - 10/21/06 10:39 PM Re: God & science
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Re:
Quote:
Originally posted by trilobyte:
Does God like science?
YES

Does God like what the evos are doing with his science?
NOPE.
So why not? How is what "evo's" do any different from what physicist's or climatologist's do.... [see above post].... Theories and models aren't reality, they're just tools.

I?ve been anxiously looking for a response. Hopefully?.
~samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#15643 - 10/22/06 03:53 AM Re: God & science
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
God must love science and scientists ... after all she made so many of us.

But what is most hillarious about TB's question is that the first time TB gets an earache you just know his mommy is running him straight to the doctor's office for one of those antibiotics discovered by scientists that worship at the alter of the church of evolution and were not discovered by a member of the clergy or written about, even once, in a holy book.

Imagine that ... god gave us scientists the ability to discover penicillin and didn't even give it to his only son, or the pope, or a bishop, or a carindal, or any other theologian. That pretty much indicates in whom she puts her trust eh.

ROFLOL!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#15644 - 10/22/06 12:38 PM Re: God & science
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
There are many reasons why the T.O.E. is derived differently than main stream science. In fact evolutionism could easily be considered as psuedo science.

The evos use circular reasoning...such as, did you ever notice how the evolutionist point to the similarities and claim they have the evidence that shows descent with modification was derived from a common ancestor.
In other words the similaraties show they are homologus...the homologies show they are descended from a common ancestor....the descention from a common ancestor is the reason for the similaraties....the similaraties show they are homologus..and round and round it goes.
Then the speculative assumptions continue. There is the claim of a slow transition between species forming a new genera that eventually becomes classified as a new family. But there is this nagging GAP problem produced by the lack of transitional fossils. So what do the evos do? The answer is simple. They fill in the large gaps with bias, imagination and plenty of plaster of paris. Speculative assumptions is passed as FACT, then force fed to our children as truth...why would God like that bad science? The speculations presented as truth? The lies?
Then again the evos god is the father of lies.

Top
#15645 - 10/22/06 03:33 PM Re: God & science
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"There are many reasons why the T.O.E. is derived differently than main stream science."
It isn't "derived" any more differently from the other sciences than the others are derived differently from each other.

"In fact evolutionism could easily be considered as psuedo science."
Only among those who are ignorant of both evolution and science.

"The evos use circular reasoning..."
What I notice is that you don't understand the argument.

"But there is this nagging GAP problem produced by the lack of transitional fossils."
There aren't as many as we would like, but there are PLENTY of transitional fossils!

And guess what -- when they fill in the gap with what they think is there, they often later find something in the record that looks just like it! Now THAT'S a confirmation of evolution!

Top
#15646 - 10/22/06 05:48 PM Re: God & science
soilguy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/28/05
Posts: 414
Loc: North Carolina
Quote:
Originally posted by trilobyte:
There are many reasons why the T.O.E. is derived differently than main stream science. In fact evolutionism could easily be considered as psuedo science.

The evos use circular reasoning...such as, did you ever notice how the evolutionist point to the similarities and claim they have the evidence that shows descent with modification was derived from a common ancestor.
In other words the similaraties show they are homologus...the homologies show they are descended from a common ancestor....the descention from a common ancestor is the reason for the similaraties....the similaraties show they are homologus..and round and round it goes.
Bzzzzt! Hard though it may be to believe, Trilobyte is wrong. A possible reason for homologous structures is the hypothesis of descent with modification. That hypothesis makes predictions about what we should find in:

a. the fossil record, and
b. comparing the genomes of closely related and distantly related creatures.

(It makes other predictions, as well, but these are two of the biggies.)

Do we find transitional fossils between apparently related (based on body structures) creatures? You bet -- as predicted by the TOE. Do we find that the genomes of similarly structured creatures are also similar to each other? You bet -- as predicted by the TOE.

The TOE is a useful theory because its predictions are accurate. Creationism is a useless hypothesis, because it predicts NOTHING.

Circular reasoning goes like this:

Q: Is the Bible the word of God?

A: Yes. It says so in the Bible.
_________________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis

Top
#15647 - 10/22/06 06:34 PM Re: God & science
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I'll write more later, but for now.... I think you're confusing circular reasoning with internal consistency (something theories strive for). Circular reasoning can be pointed out in most theories, but only if you look at the foundation or basic assumptions of a theory. For instance, atomic theory assumes that atoms exist. Measurements of an atom can be made, so atoms must exist; if they didn't exist, how could they be measured? Another example is the assumption that the speed of light is constant. We observe time slow down as things speed up, so the assumption looks "right." If the assumption is "right," then we should expect time to slow; but a better explanation may come along later.
This is a characteristic for all theories as well as religions too, I think. We have to make basic assumptions in order to have more complex ideas.

I do disagree with your statement: "Speculative assumptions is passed as FACT...."
Speculative assumptions such as "Does God like what the evos are doing with his science?
NOPE."

Well, sorry, guess my point is that science is always ready to see old "facts" explained away by some new "facts." ...and if that is true, then were these ever really "facts?"
As you use "FACT," I think you're referring to "reality." When science uses "fact," they mean a basic idea or observation which hasn't been refuted (despite many attempts), YET.

Science speculates, and science assumes facts (until disproven), but speculating facts is not science. In the heat of the moment, people refer to 'facts," but if you pin a scientist down on the matter, they should agree that their facts are provisional; that they are only facts within the context of the theory to which they pertain.

I'm probably overstating (or even wrongly stating) this point, but I'm trying to convey that science is not "set in stone." It is not reality, it is just a method or tool helpful in understanding and organizing our perception of reality.

I'll try for a better response later, but for now let me try to illustrate my point by saying that I believe both the theories of relativity and of evolution are NOT "true." But I can still use these theories to help me explain, understand, and talk about reality. Similarly, I don't think any religion is "true," but I could still use religion to try to understand or talk about God.

Thanks again; more later?
~Samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#15648 - 10/22/06 08:52 PM Re: God & science
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Please stop feeding the troll.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#15649 - 10/22/06 09:39 PM Re: God & science
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Sorry DA, but I?m enjoying this more-or-less philosophical discussion about the nature of meaning, understanding, and reality. I see a difference between this thread and a feeding frenzy over some particular facts (observations, data).
~SA
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#15650 - 10/22/06 11:29 PM Re: God & science
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:


And guess what -- when they fill in the gap with what they think is there, they often later find something in the record that looks just like it! Now THAT'S a confirmation of evolution!
Do you have a reference for your above statement or did you post it because you thought it sounded good?

Do tell us how it confirms evolutionism.

Top
#15651 - 10/22/06 11:36 PM Re: God & science
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
soilguy posted:
comparing the genomes of closely related and distantly related creatures.

What the similar genomes tells us is that a common creator used common "part" when the creator made the different kinds.

Your statement certainly isn't a fact. Just speculative assumption...often passed off as fact to the unsuspecting.

Top
#15652 - 10/22/06 11:41 PM Re: God & science
trilobyte Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/12/06
Posts: 179
samwik posted:
Well, sorry, guess my point is that science is always ready to see old "facts" explained away by some new "facts." ...and if that is true, then were these ever really "facts?"

It's time to once again change your "facts".
For example T-Rex soft tissue was found...we all know soft tissue can't last for 65+ MY's...so it is obvious the dinosaurs went extinct recently....time to change your "facts"

Top
#15653 - 10/23/06 12:13 AM Re: God & science
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
You've never heard of archaeopteryx?

What about the fossil fish belowmentioned here:
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2006..._evolution.html

Try getting out of the trailer park and you'll learn all kinds of things.

Top
#15654 - 10/23/06 12:18 AM Re: God & science
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
wow, hold on a minute. re: all the other posts.

trilobyte, you wrote: "Do tell us how it confirms evolutionism."


Regarding the semantics of the word ?confirmed?

Yes, you are right; I think it is scientifically self-righteous to claim a theory is ever ?confirmed.? It would be more appropriate to say a particular theory is ?supported? by a particular finding (discovery, observation, or result). A finding gives more support to, or lends more credence to a theory. When a finding ?confirms? a prediction made by a theory, then that theory is given more weight (it?s more useful as a tool).

A scientist is human too; and will often overstate the case.


For instance, observing that clocks slow down when we shoot them up in rockets, confirms a prediction of Einstein?s relativity theory, but it can?t be said to confirm the theory as fact. But everyone runs around saying it proves relativity. It only confirms the theory is still valid (it works), not that the theory is true.

~Samantics
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#15655 - 10/23/06 12:30 AM Re: God & science
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
How'd this page get so wide & hard to read.
Maybe a hard return in that fossil-find link above would help.
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.