Ask Me Help Desk - Science or Religion

Hello again,

If I believed that biology was hocus pocus, I'd NEVER let a medical doctor NEAR ME.. But, some people are hypocrites, or are so dumb that they don't know that biology is BASED on evolution...

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Darwin was well and healthy when he spoke of concerns about the lack of transitional fossils which would've proved his hypothesis .He hoped in the future that some would be found. But that never happened

Actually there is.

Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It makes little difference one way or the other as far as science and religion are concerned.

Quote:

Is Archopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test

Of course it fits in well with Darwinists preconceptions so it qualifies as fact .

Religion is about people, science is about the search of facts. I see it as two different classrooms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

of course it fits in well with Darwinists preconceptions so it qualifies as fact .

"it is easy enough to make up stores of how one gave rise to the other......"

The use of the word "stories" sounds a bit strange. Is this quote from a scientific source? It doesn't sound like the language of science. Is it a wiki quote?

It is logic, who needs wiki leaks for logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by N0help4u

It is logic, who needs wiki leaks for logic.

In what ways would you say the actual quote is logical?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Religion is about people, science is about the search of facts. I see it as two different classrooms.

Until you start to try to disprove religion and find you cannot come up with the facts, or shall we call it something different, an alternative explanation that is based in fact

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

until you start to try to disprove religion and find you cannot come up with the facts, or shall we call it something different, an alternative explanation that is based in fact

"Religion" and "facts" don't belong in the same sentence (and yes, I am a preacher's kid).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

In what ways would you say the actual quote is logical?

"it is easy enough to make up stories of how one gave rise to the other......"
I think it was 'Lucy' where they found different bones to different species and then claimed that it proved the neanderthal. Darwin's whole theory was about making up stories that caused giving rise to another. Theories are theories and that is how the made up stories come to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

"it is easy enough to make up stores of how one gave rise to the other......"

The use of the word "stories" sounds a bit strange. Is this quote from a scientific source? It doesn't sound like the language of science. Is it a wiki quote?

Sorry forgot to reference... it is a quote from Colin Patterson . He was a paleontologist at the British Museum and author of several books on evolution. Here is another pertinent quote from Patterson .It was in a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, who had asked Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book:.
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." He later went on to explain :
Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.
Exactly

Quote:

Originally Posted by N0help4u

"it is easy enough to make up stories of how one gave rise to the other......"
I think it was 'Lucy' where they found different bones to different species and then claimed that it proved the neanderthal. Darwin's whole theory was about making up stories that caused giving rise to another. Theories are theories and that is how the made up stories come to be.

Theories are actually evidence that fits the observations at the time. Nothing more and nothing less.

I don't know who would have said anything about proving the whole theory. No evolutionary biologist with any credibility would say such a thing. As far as science is concerned there is no amount of observational evidence that proves any theory in its entirety. No scientist should ever make such a claim. If they do then they are not doing science.

Confusion over transitional records and evolution is sometimes caused by thinking of evolution as progression along a linear scale.

Quote:

No scientist should ever make such a claim. If they do then they are not doing science.

yes that would be a consensus orthodoxy .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes that would be a consensus orthodoxy .

Theories are supported by the evidence, usually observational in nature. Some commentators of science get this wrong. They don't seem to realize that science is more than happy to acknowledge that it must always be an open question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

sorry forgot to reference .... it is a quote from Colin Patterson . He was a paleontologist at the British Museum and author of several books on evolution. Here is another pertinent quote from Patterson .It was in a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, who had asked Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book:.
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." He later went on to explain :
Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.
exactly

A private letter. That would explain the terminology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Theories are supported by the evidence, usually observational in nature. Some commentators of science get this wrong. They don't seem to realize that science is more than happy to acknowledge that it must always be an open question.

If that were truly the case then why do we have so many that still cling to the global warming theory ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdad

If that were truely the case then why do we have so many that still cling to the global warming theory ?

Good question. The answer is probably because they are human. Other practical reasons may well be that it provides a good paycheck each week. Even the great Einstein refused to accept the evidence of quantum mechanics. "God does not play dice". Interestingly enough there are still a few mainstream scientists are still hostile towards quantum mechanics.

When you start to talk about the implications of quantum mechanics a few soon becomes many. I guess it is just human nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdad

If that were truely the case then why do we have so many that still cling to the global warming theory ?

Truly a good question and the answer lies in human nature, we want to believe that the answers we have come up with are the whole truth because our egos won't allow us to consider that we might be wrong until the weight of contrary evidence is overwhelming. In Global Warming we have a partial truth that has been blown out of proportion for political purposes. Yes there is or maybe some impact from the burning of fossel fuels, but it isn't the entire reason, examination of the evidence has shown other factors. Volcanos have both a warming effect and a cooling effect, the Earth's orbit is eliptical, the solar cycle, deforestation

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

truely a good question and the answer lies in human nature, we want to believe that the answers we have come up with are the whole truth because our egos won't allow us to consider that we might be wrong until the weight of contrary evidence is overwhelming. In Global Warming we have a partial truth that has been blown out of proportion for political purposes. Yes there is or maybe some impact from the burning of fossel fuels, but it isn't the entire reason, examination of the evidence has shown other factors. Volcanos have both a warming effect and a cooling effect, the Earth's orbit is eliptical, the solar cycle, deforestation

You left out that the model was flawed to begin with and the model was made to show a desired outcome as well as the way they went about monitoring things by putting the measuring devices they used next to known heat sources to support the theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdad

You left out that the model was flawed to begin with and the model was made to show a desired outcome as well as the way they went about monitoring things by putting the measuring devices they used next to known heat sources to support the theory.

well I wasn't trying to debunk the work of the scientific community, just point out that they hadn't considered all possibilities before prognosticating. Al Gore used select data to demonstate a problem existed but his extrapolations were flawed, others made similar errors or just didn't use clean data, and they failed to identify all the variables but the whole debate had been around longer than that and was subject to political exploitation