[Capuchin]

Thanks Galveston, but book means nothing to us, scientifically speaking. :)

Well, unless he doesn't mind us quoting counter points from THGTTG

[ordinaryguy]

My point is that any seeming conflict between the Bible and true science is explained by a flawed understanding of either the Bible, or science. There have been instances of both things happening.

This, I can agree with. I salute you for recognizing that it is possible to have a flawed understanding of the Bible. This is a peculiar blind spot that too many Bible quoters have. They seem to be willfully ignorant of the choices that they themselves have made in order to arrive at their interpretation of the book. Any suggestion that their understanding is flawed is taken as irrefutable evidence that the suggestion is offered out of selfish (at best) or, more likely, evil motives.

Science, on the other hand, is all about ferreting out the flaws in our understanding and exposing the inconsistencies in our explanations. It accepts the fact that every explanation, model, or theory is limited, incomplete, and inaccurate to some degree and under some conditions. Careful measurements of the degree of those inaccuracies and the conditions under which they occur are the clues that lead to a clearer explanation, a better model, a more general theory.

I generally prefer the company of scientific folks to religious folks because they tend to be more humble.

[excon]

Hello again:

For what it's worth, Jews make the best scientists because Jews are taught from the get go to question their faith. That's why they're the best lawyers too, because Jews argue about their religion all the time, and it's very Jewish to do so.

Christians are taught to blindly accept it.

You can't be a good scientist if you accept ANYTHING blindly, In my opinion.

Go Jews.

excon

[De Maria]

... Science, on the other hand, is all about ferreting out the flaws in our understanding...

Not so. That's what it should be about. But the fact is that many if not most people make a religion of science.

That is the entire point of this post. It is literally impossible to bring something from nothing, yet Science insists that it happened.

It is impossible to bring life from nonlife, yet many scientists rabidly insist that it happened.

and exposing the inconsistencies in our explanations.

That also isn't true. That is why the scientific community is against comparing any other theory to evolution in the classroom. Evolution is their dogma.

It accepts the fact that every explanation, model, or theory is limited, incomplete, and inaccurate to some degree and under some conditions. Careful measurements of the degree of those inaccuracies and the conditions under which they occur are the clues that lead to a clearer explanation, a better model, a more general theory.

In theory. But in practice, what actually happens is each person goes around defending his own work and attacking everyone else's.

And sometimes that process does lead to innovations which are better for humanity. But frequently, serendipity has more to do with a new discovery than actual logic.

I generally prefer the company of scientific folks to religious folks because they tend to be more humble.

In my opinion, it's the other way around. Religious folk tend to be more humble because they have humbled themselves before God. And if they are vocal in defending the truths revealed by God, that is also humility in comparison to someone that is only defending what he spouts.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[NeedKarma]

But the fact is that many if not most people make a religion of science.

Actually that is false. We've been down that road before. You are a little confused. Science and its tenets have changed with the discovery of new evidence, not so with the truly religious types.

In my opinion, its the other way around. Religious folk tend to be more humble because they have humbled themselves before God.

You need to read more of the posts on this board by your supposed religious friends. You just may have your head in the sand. :)

[Synnen]

Humble? RELIGIOUS people, humble?

At least the scientists I've met will admit when they don't know something, or that they may not be right about something, but that they have a theory and want to test it.

Religious people are incredibly convinced that they, and ONLY they, are right about their specific religion.

If that were not true, we wouldn't have half the wars in this world that we have. I mean, really--what's the constant bombing in Jerusalem about, if not religion? And what about the most recent attack on US soil? Wasn't that Muslims thinking THEIR religion was right?

I've never yet heard of someone going to war for science. I've heard of people getting burned at the stake, beheaded, and tortured for not being religious, though.

[Capuchin]

That is why the scientific community is against comparing any other theory to evolution in the classroom.

Give us another theory and we'll compare it to evolution...

[De Maria]

Give us another theory and we'll compare it to evolution...

Intelligent Design.

[De Maria]

Actually that is false. We've been down that road before. You are a little confused. Science and its tenets have changed with the discovery of new evidence, not so with the truly religious types.

You need to read more of the posts on this board by your supposed religious friends. You just may have your head in the sand. :)

Yes, we have been down this road before. Your friend the Pitbull guy had to warn you against getting all upset because we religious folks have opinions which are just as valid as yours.

Now, if you want to start another round of insults, then post another message to me telling me that I'm confused and I have my head in the sand. Then I'll respond and you can start crying to the mods because you can't take what you dish out.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Capuchin]

Intelligent Design.

It's not a theory, it doesn't give meaningful or testable predictions. It also seems to be very subjective, something that a scientific theory cannot be.

[De Maria]

Duplicate, please ignore.

[De Maria]

Humble? RELIGIOUS people, humble?

That is correct.

At least the scientists I've met will admit when they don't know something, or that they may not be right about something, but that they have a theory and want to test it.

I have met many religious people who admit when they are wrong also. Are you saying you haven't met any? And that is only one aspect of humility.

# marked by meekness or modesty; not arrogant or prideful; "a humble apology"; "essentially humble...and self-effacing, he achieved the highest formal honors and distinctions"- B.K.Malinowski
# cause to be unpretentious; "This experience will humble him"
# used of unskilled work (especially domestic work)
# humiliate: cause to feel shame; hurt the pride of; "He humiliated his colleague by criticising him in front of the boss"
# base: of low birth or station (`base' is archaic in this sense); "baseborn wretches with dirty faces"; "of humble (or lowly) birth"
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I've met many religious people who work to help the poor and feed the hungry.

And very few in the scientific community who care about anything besides their experiments.

Religious people are incredibly convinced that they, and ONLY they, are right about their specific religion.

Will you please read what you just said. Scientists constantly object to non-Scientists when they think non-scientists have crossed their border. And rightly so.

And it is also right when a Religious person defends his beliefs from someone who doesn't know them as well as he does.

Or do you think ignorance should win out over knowledge? Is that what you are suggesting?

If that were not true, we wouldn't have half the wars in this world that we have. I mean, really--what's the constant bombing in Jerusalem about, if not religion? And what about the most recent attack on US soil? Wasn't that Muslims thinking THEIR religion was right?

I've never yet heard of someone going to war for science. I've heard of people getting burned at the stake, beheaded, and tortured for not being religious, though.

But is war the criteria for dogma? What is the secular definition of dogma?

# a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
# a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma"
Wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So, just because scientists have not gone to war to prove that something comes from nothing, doesn't mean that they don't still want to pass it off as true without proof. And there is no proof that a state of nothingness ever existed. And there is no proof that life evolved from non-life. Yet they keep trying to pass that off as truth.

And by definition that means that science has turned those theories into religious doctrines.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

It's not a theory, it doesn't give meaningful or testable predictions. It also seems to be very subjective, something that a scientific theory cannot be.

Then neither is the Big Bang nor Evolutionary theory. Because they each make assumptions which can't be tested.

The Big Bang rests on the assumption that something comes from nothing. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

Evolution rests on the assumption that life comes from non life. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

And they both rest on the assumption that complete randomness can create intelligent life and intricate, complex organisms. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Capuchin]

Then neither is the Big Bang nor Evolutionary theory. Because they each make assumptions which can't be tested.

The Big Bang rests on the assumption that something comes from nothing. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

Evolution rests on the assumption that life comes from non life. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

And they both rest on the assumption that complete randomness can create intelligent life and intricate, complex organisms. Show me the test that reproduces that prediction.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You are showing your ignorance here.

Firstly your misconceptions about what these theories predict: The Big bang theory explains how we got here from a singularity, not from nothing. Evolution explains how we got here from the first replicating organism, not how we got here from non-life. We don't have enough evidence to form a theory of how life came from non-life, and we don't have enough evidence to explain how the singularity got there before the big bang. There are multiple scientific hypotheses about both of these subjects, none of which are "it was magic" like the creationist hypothesis, since we have no evidence that magic happens.

Secondly you seem to believe that both theories are based around randomness. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Evolution is a selective process based around individuals of a population competing for limited resources. The big bang theory is based around the formation of matter as the universe expanded and cooled, and later how this matter clumps together under gravitational force. (neither of these are random, and are commonly tested with predictions in particle accelerators and astronomical observation).

You show a complete lack of understanding about these 2 theories, and it's no wonder you don't believe them, because you think they are something completely different from what they actually are.

[ordinaryguy]

Not so. That's what it should be about. But the fact is that many if not most people make a religion of science.

That is the entire point of this post. It is literally impossible to bring something from nothing, yet Science insists that it happened.

It is impossible to bring life from nonlife, yet many scientists rabidly insist that it happened.



That also isn't true. That is why the scientific community is against comparing any other theory to evolution in the classroom. Evolution is their dogma.



In theory. But in practice, what actually happens is each person goes around defending his own work and attacking everyone else's.

And sometimes that process does lead to innovations which are better for humanity. But frequently, serendipity has more to do with a new discovery than actual logic.



In my opinion, its the other way around. Religious folk tend to be more humble because they have humbled themselves before God. And if they are vocal in defending the truths revealed by God, that is also humility in comparison to someone that is only defending what he spouts.

Sincerely,

De Maria

You mis-characterize scientific methods and conclusions, and then ridicule your own misconception. I'm afraid you're doing your cause more harm than good. Attacking a straw man version of "science" accomplishes nothing except to make you appear both arrogant and misinformed.

[De Maria]

You mis-characterize scientific methods and conclusions, and then ridicule your own misconception. I'm afraid you're doing your cause more harm than good. Attacking a straw man version of "science" accomplishes nothing except to make you appear both arrogant and misinformed.

Lol!! Typical. Since you don't have a reasonable response, you try to tarnish mine. But I notice you have no specifics as to what strawman was created nor where the mis-characterizations took place.

[De Maria]

You are showing your ignorance here.

Firstly your misconceptions about what these theories predict: The Big bang theory explains how we got here from a singularity, not from nothing.

No, no. I'm certain that it purports to explains how we got here from nothing.

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
Big Bang Theory

Evolution explains how we got here from the first replicating organism, not how we got here from non-life.

Again, abiogenesis has always been part and parcel of Darwin's theory.

The fifth phase is "Organic Evolution" (also known as "spontaneous generation"). The theory is that the planet Earth began as a molten mass of matter a few billions years ago. It cooled off into solid, dry rock. Then, it rained on the rocks for millions of years, forming great oceans. Eventually, this "prebiotic rock soup" (water + rock) came alive and spawned the first self-replicating organic systems.
Theory Of Evolution

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We don't have enough evidence to form a theory of how life came from non-life, and we don't have enough evidence to explain how the singularity got there before the big bang.

Thank you! Yet many, many scientists spout that as dogma.

And they proclaim their assumptions are valid but when we proclaim our assumption that God is the author of creation and of life, they call our assumption invalid. Yet we have more proof from logic and from observation that only an intelligence can create and design than they have that something came from nothing and that life spontaneously generated from non life.

There are multiple scientific hypotheses about both of these subjects, none of which are "it was magic" like the creationist hypothesis, since we have no evidence that magic happens.

Yes, all those scientific hypothesis which proclaim that something came from nothing amount to forms of magic. And Creationists do not believe in magic.

Secondly you seem to believe that both theories are based around randomness. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Evolution is a selective process based around individuals of a population competing for limited resources.

Evolution is based on the notion that random changes in the genes will cause variation in the organism which makes those specimens more likely to survive random changes in the environment.

How does evolution work? - Natural History Museum
Evolution is driven by random changes in the genes of organisms, called mutations,.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/e...-is-evolution/

The big bang theory is based around the formation of matter as the universe expanded and cooled, and later how this matter clumps together under gravitational force. (neither of these are random, and are commonly tested with predictions in particle accelerators and astronomical observation).

The Big Bang theory is based precisely upon the effects of an explosion. An explosion does not produce orderly results but by its very nature produces random results.

You show a complete lack of understanding about these 2 theories, and it's no wonder you don't believe them, because you think they are something completely different from what they actually are.

1. I think I've expounded a thorough understanding of these theories.
2. I never said I didn't believe certain aspects of these theories.
a. But I don't believe they are unassailable facts. As many here seem to believe.
b. I believe many of their assumptions are unproven and unprovable.

And, you have admitted that there is not enough evidence to support those aspects of these theories which I question.

It is significant that the random theory of the universe which was in vogue 20 and 30 years ago is beginning to die out. Perhaps these other illogical ideas will die with it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[NeedKarma]

Your first two links are part of this website: Holy Bible

Not very objective.

[excon]

Hello again:

I'm getting off this marygoround...

excon

[Capuchin]

No, no. I'm certain that it purports to explains how we got here from nothing.

Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.
Big Bang Theory



Again, abiogenesis has always been part and parcel of Darwin's theory.

The fifth phase is "Organic Evolution" (also known as "spontaneous generation"). The theory is that the planet Earth began as a molten mass of matter a few billions years ago. It cooled off into solid, dry rock. Then, it rained on the rocks for millions of years, forming great oceans. Eventually, this "prebiotic rock soup" (water + rock) came alive and spawned the first self-replicating organic systems.
Theory Of Evolution

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[9] Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thank you! Yet many, many scientists spout that as dogma.

And they proclaim their assumptions are valid but when we proclaim our assumption that God is the author of creation and of life, they call our assumption invalid. Yet we have more proof from logic and from observation that only an intelligence can create and design than they have that something came from nothing and that life spontaneously generated from non life.



Yes, all those scientific hypothesis which proclaim that something came from nothing amount to forms of magic. And Creationists do not believe in magic.



Evolution is based on the notion that random changes in the genes will cause variation in the organism which makes those specimens more likely to survive random changes in the environment.

How does evolution work? - Natural History Museum
Evolution is driven by random changes in the genes of organisms, called mutations,...
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/e...-is-evolution/



The Big Bang theory is based precisely upon the effects of an explosion. An explosion does not produce orderly results but by its very nature produces random results.



1. I think I've expounded a thorough understanding of these theories.
2. I never said I didn't believe certain aspects of these theories.
a. But I don't believe they are unassailable facts. As many here seem to believe.
b. I believe many of their assumptions are unproven and unprovable.

And, you have admitted that there is not enough evidence to support those aspects of these theories which I question.

It is significant that the random theory of the universe which was in vogue 20 and 30 years ago is beginning to die out. Perhaps these other illogical ideas will die with it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Sigh, there's too much stuff to set you right on here. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of science, a fundamental misunderstanding of these theories, and enough arrogance to not listen when someone tries to help you to understand it. I give up, I have science to do. It's obvious that you made this topic to spout your point of view, with no intent of really listening to the answers.