| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: Faith and science |  |
|
This is a continuation of the discussion that somehow seemed to spring up from nowhere ( ) in the GD racism thread.
| David wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | | Redlight wrote: | | Pa Marmo wrote: | | Very interesting point you raise Laird, both evolution and religion rely heavily on faith. |
I can't let that ride.
Although I'm happy for people to have faith and religious beliefs, let's not pretend that evolutionary theory is 'faith' based.
The theory of evolution is supported by an enormous amount of evidence. Evidence that has been examined and peer reviewed by the finest minds on the planet over generations.
Faith has nothing to do with it. |
Sorry, can't let that ride either.
The belief that nothing exploded to create hydrogen, which is a gas, which became people requires more faith than believing in God. The usual refrain if given enough time what seems impossible becomes possible proves that it is based on faith.
Many scientists do not believe it either, from people who believe in creationism to those who believe in intelligent design. Just because it is the ruling scientific paradign does not mean it is correct.
Even Dawkins in his book the greatest show on earth where he purports to put together all the best evidence for evolution says when talking about the probability of life arising from inorganic matter, that they are entitled to accept an implausible theory. Sounds like faith to me. |
Although I have absolutely no idea why we're talking about this here, 'faith' is the wrong word to use in this context. It's a hypothesis. As Dawkins says, there are some things about the origin of the universe that we simply may never know; we see as through a glass darkly, to quote a Bible verse. That doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't engage in informed speculation, which is exactly what science does.
Creationism and intelligent design are pseudosciences. On the other hand, the scientific paradigm tells us that the world is round and that certain mathematic equations can help us calculate how to send a probe to Mars. I'll take that process over blind faith any day. |
| David wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | No problems with the operational science that can send probes to Mars etc. it is the historical science that relys on your world view which you try to fit the data into. The same data is available to all.
Creationism and ID do exactly the same as big bang, neo Darwinists in trying to fit the data into their hypothesis to explain history. |
The difference is that neo-Darwinists are trying to come up with hypotheses within a scientifically valid framework (evolution; physical cosmology) whereas Creationists and ID people are coming up with hypotheses that fit a predetermined unscientific method (i.e. relying on an ancient mythical text as a scientific document). That's the big difference here. |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Disagree. The only 2 valid hypothesis are that it all came into existence by itself or that it was created. Both are as scientifically valid frameworks as each other.
Those scientists that believe in Creation have their own technical journals which are peer reviewed and use the Bible as a true historical record from which formulate their hypothesis.
It involves lots of speculations because no one was physically there to record it. However, God was there and hence it is a true but not exhaustive reevaluation contained in the Bible. This is the framework which they use.
Cosmology etc. are full of speculations because it is not the same as the science that sends probes to Mars. |
|
|
|
|
schuey07 
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Location: Mount Waverley
|
| Post subject: Re: Faith and science | |
|
| David wrote: | This is a continuation of the discussion that somehow seemed to spring up from nowhere () in the GD racism thread.
| David wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | | Redlight wrote: | | Pa Marmo wrote: | | Very interesting point you raise Laird, both evolution and religion rely heavily on faith. |
I can't let that ride.
Although I'm happy for people to have faith and religious beliefs, let's not pretend that evolutionary theory is 'faith' based.
The theory of evolution is supported by an enormous amount of evidence. Evidence that has been examined and peer reviewed by the finest minds on the planet over generations.
Faith has nothing to do with it. |
Sorry, can't let that ride either.
The belief that nothing exploded to create hydrogen, which is a gas, which became people requires more faith than believing in God. The usual refrain if given enough time what seems impossible becomes possible proves that it is based on faith.
Many scientists do not believe it either, from people who believe in creationism to those who believe in intelligent design. Just because it is the ruling scientific paradign does not mean it is correct.
Even Dawkins in his book the greatest show on earth where he purports to put together all the best evidence for evolution says when talking about the probability of life arising from inorganic matter, that they are entitled to accept an implausible theory. Sounds like faith to me. |
Although I have absolutely no idea why we're talking about this here, 'faith' is the wrong word to use in this context. It's a hypothesis. As Dawkins says, there are some things about the origin of the universe that we simply may never know; we see as through a glass darkly, to quote a Bible verse. That doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't engage in informed speculation, which is exactly what science does.
Creationism and intelligent design are pseudosciences. On the other hand, the scientific paradigm tells us that the world is round and that certain mathematic equations can help us calculate how to send a probe to Mars. I'll take that process over blind faith any day. |
| David wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | No problems with the operational science that can send probes to Mars etc. it is the historical science that relys on your world view which you try to fit the data into. The same data is available to all.
Creationism and ID do exactly the same as big bang, neo Darwinists in trying to fit the data into their hypothesis to explain history. |
The difference is that neo-Darwinists are trying to come up with hypotheses within a scientifically valid framework (evolution; physical cosmology) whereas Creationists and ID people are coming up with hypotheses that fit a predetermined unscientific method (i.e. relying on an ancient mythical text as a scientific document). That's the big difference here. |
|
This is a topic close to my heart. I love science and I've had this debate many times. I have found that people of faith will never understand science and the scientific method.
All I know is that through science we have done many great things as a species, discovered some truly remarkable places in the universe and I am glad that I'm alive now to experience the great leaps we are making in discovering where we truly come from and where we are heading.
We are made up of elements that are only created in the death of a star that goes supernova. We are made from star stuff. We can look back in time and see extremely close to the Big Bang through the CMB. We can see and hear the remnants of the Big Bang when we tune a radio or a TV. This for me is far more mind blowing than the belief in a deity that has created everything.
The best part of all of this is that I can look to the stars and see most of this through my telescope. |
|
|
|
|
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Dude, maybe 'people of faith' should be changed to 'wilfully ignorant people', or just 'idiots'.
Faith is believing in something without understanding it. I don't understand general relativity (having tried many times to) but I have faith in it because many people smarter than myself have looked at it and said that it is good. It might be irrational to just blindly accept it but it's also practical. |
|
|
|
|
schuey07
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Location: Mount Waverley
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thebaldfacts wrote: | Disagree. The only 2 valid hypothesis are that it all came into existence by itself or that it was created. Both are as scientifically valid frameworks as each other.
Those scientists that believe in Creation have their own technical journals which are peer reviewed and use the Bible as a true historical record from which formulate their hypothesis.
It involves lots of speculations because no one was physically there to record it. However, God was there and hence it is a true but not exhaustive reevaluation contained in the Bible. This is the framework which they use.
Cosmology etc. are full of speculations because it is not the same as the science that sends probes to Mars. |
This is incorrect, the science that sends probes to Mars is the same science that we use in cosmology. All this is physics and chemistry, different fields in these two areas but the fundamental science is the same. |
|
|
|
|
schuey07
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Location: Mount Waverley
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | Dude, maybe 'people of faith' should be changed to 'wilfully ignorant people', or just 'idiots'.
Faith is believing in something without understanding it. I don't understand general relativity (having tried many times to) but I have faith in it because many people smarter than myself have looked at it and said that it is good. It might be irrational to just blindly accept it but it's also practical. |
I'm talking about "religious faith" here, faith in imaginary beings who always seem to need money and hate anyone who has a different view. |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I too love science knowing that man being created in Gods image can use those faculties that man has been endeared with to discover the beauty of Gods creation.
Truly it is written that the heavens declare the glory of God. |
|
|
|
|
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| schuey07 wrote: | | faith in imaginary beings who always seem to need money and hate anyone who has a different view. |
LOL
And so God created man in his image!  |
|
|
|
|
schuey07
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Location: Mount Waverley
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | | schuey07 wrote: | | faith in imaginary beings who always seem to need money and hate anyone who has a different view. |
LOL
And so God created man in his image! |
If you believe that. |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
[quote="schuey07"] | thebaldfacts wrote: | Disagree. The only 2 valid hypothesis are that it all came into existence by itself or that it was created. Both are as scientifically valid frameworks as each other.
Those scientists that believe in Creation have their own technical journals which are peer reviewed and use the Bible as a true historical record from which formulate their hypothesis.
It involves lots of speculations because no one was physically there to record it. However, God was there and hence it is a true but not exhaustive reevaluation contained in the Bible. This is the framework which they use.
Cosmology etc. are full of speculations because it is not the same as the science that sends probes to Mars.[/quote
This is incorrect, the science that sends probes to Mars is the same science that we use in cosmology. All this is physics and chemistry, different fields in these two areas but the fundamental science is the same. |
Wrong again. The cosmology of the Big Bang requires all space, time and matter materialising magically into into a singularity which then miraculously exploding. Then we need the entire orderly universe to materialise. Think you may find that the science that sends probes to Mars maybe a tad different don't you think? |
|
|
|
|
thebaldfacts
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| schuey07 wrote: | | Nick - Pie Man wrote: | | schuey07 wrote: | | faith in imaginary beings who always seem to need money and hate anyone who has a different view. |
LOL
And so God created man in his image! |
If you believe that. |
And you believe that an incredibly complex organism spontaneously generated itself from inorganic matter and then by a serious of random genetic copying mistakes has added all the required genetic material to give life to all living things on the earth.
Blind faith indeed. |
|
|
|
|
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| schuey07 wrote: | | Nick - Pie Man wrote: | | schuey07 wrote: | | faith in imaginary beings who always seem to need money and hate anyone who has a different view. |
LOL
And so God created man in his image! |
If you believe that. |
Based on those two quotes and nothing else I'd say the evidence was conclusive!
Unless you believe man moulded god in his image, which also seems to fit the data. |
|
|
|
|
schuey07
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Location: Mount Waverley
|
| Post subject: | |
|
[quote="thebaldfacts"] | schuey07 wrote: | | thebaldfacts wrote: | Disagree. The only 2 valid hypothesis are that it all came into existence by itself or that it was created. Both are as scientifically valid frameworks as each other.
Those scientists that believe in Creation have their own technical journals which are peer reviewed and use the Bible as a true historical record from which formulate their hypothesis.
It involves lots of speculations because no one was physically there to record it. However, God was there and hence it is a true but not exhaustive reevaluation contained in the Bible. This is the framework which they use.
Cosmology etc. are full of speculations because it is not the same as the science that sends probes to Mars.[/quote
This is incorrect, the science that sends probes to Mars is the same science that we use in cosmology. All this is physics and chemistry, different fields in these two areas but the fundamental science is the same. |
Wrong again. The cosmology of the Big Bang requires all space, time and matter materialising magically into into a singularity which then miraculously exploding. Then we need the entire orderly universe to materialise. Think you may find that the science that sends probes to Mars maybe a tad different don't you think? |
Yea it's just easier to say god did it. If we all thought like this we would still be in the dark ages. |
|
|
|
|
schuey07
Joined: 05 Aug 2008
Location: Mount Waverley
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | | schuey07 wrote: | | Nick - Pie Man wrote: | | schuey07 wrote: | | faith in imaginary beings who always seem to need money and hate anyone who has a different view. |
LOL
And so God created man in his image! |
If you believe that. |
Based on those two quotes and nothing else I'd say the evidence was conclusive!
Unless you believe man moulded god in his image, which also seems to fit the data. |
I'd say your second choice is probably closer to the mark. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| schuey07 wrote: | [quote="thebaldfacts"][quote="schuey07"][quote="thebaldfacts"]Disagree. The only 2 valid hypothesis are that it all came into existence by itself or that it was created. Both are as scientifically valid frameworks as each other.
Those scientists that believe in Creation have their own technical journals which are peer reviewed and use the Bible as a true historical record from which formulate their hypothesis.
It involves lots of speculations because no one was physically there to record it. However, God was there and hence it is a true but not exhaustive reevaluation contained in the Bible. This is the framework which they use.
Cosmology etc. are full of speculations because it is not the same as the science that sends probes to Mars.[/quote
This is incorrect, the science that sends probes to Mars is the same science that we use in cosmology. All this is physics and chemistry, different fields in these two areas but the fundamental science is the same.[/quote]
Wrong again. The cosmology of the Big Bang requires all space, time and matter materialising magically into into a singularity which then miraculously exploding. Then we need the entire orderly universe to materialise. Think you may find that the science that sends probes to Mars maybe a tad different don't you think?[/quote]
Yea it's just easier to say god did it. If we all thought like this we would still be in the dark ages. |
HAL is always thinking. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
