A Brief Science Class for Devout Christians (mythology, church, quote)

[rifleman]

I've learned over the past 6 months that when there's a debate about some typical hot topics, especially religious ones, there are those two general positions:

1: Sarcastic objectivism and empiricism overlaid with an arrogant over-dependance on so-called incontrovdertible scientific validity (me),

and/or:

2: Blathering, deflective illogic and ad-hominem attacks or accusations of scientific fraud in the face of facts and provable evidence (them).

One common theme I do see in my more objective moments, though, is the absolutely amazing lack of knowledge and understanding of what The Science ToolSet is, and how it's typically applied to a huge and vastly different set of questions. Consequently, there's the then attendant mis-understandings of what a researcher can then reasonably conclude.

If they understood how science works, what some of those definitions mean, and just how and why we feel confident with our conclusions, perhaps Christian non-scientists would at least realize that science, in general, is basically honest and quite reliable.

That's my objective. Not to rub anyone's noses in anything. Less'n they deserve it, of course.... I'm hoping they will have the decency and respect to agree when things are agreeable. Obvious blindered wailing will be immediately obvious to all readers I'm sure, so I'll let others set in and provide the dunce caps or hand wacks with the ruler.

With that in mind, I've decided to provide a several-part seminar format of an actual modern-day research study. It has several uses as a demo, plus, it's factually accurate, because it represents work I directed while on the job at a huge Northern British Columbia mine site. I was required to come up with accurate predictions; workers' lives depended on it. And again, I wasn't trying to prove or disprove any theistic topics. I was almost a practicing Xtian back then, having only just started to drift away from mythology.

To repeat, it was not done to in any way prove or disprove "the existance of God", but was rather a simple excercise in recording some hydrologic conditions in order to be able to predict runoff conditions later on. In order to prevent massive erosion events, and to ensure the safety and even the lives of the thousands of workers that were toiling in that "loon-sh#t" (as we called it) soil typical of the ancient northern Rockies. Put a bit of water on it and it all wanted to slither away, usually burying something or someone in the process.

So we applied pretty standard methods, and in return we achieved our goal. We were thus able to predict, quite accurately, the future. There was another benefit, but I'll leave that to the end, and ask the Christian audience if they might have the answer.

Anyone? Anyone?

[rifleman]

The Chronology and Logic of Simple Field Geology. April, 2009


First Statement; Background: Let’s set this up. We have a stream, Torrent Creek, that is sourced in a drainage basin that includes a few mountainous valleys with some unique geological formations. The stream feeds into a lake that is captive behind a dam, so it’s currents and overall water movement are very still . The stream has, over many years, created an alluvial deposition “fan”. In other words, the silt that is picked up and transported down this stream in the course of a year by the erosional capability and water velocity in this stream (called its bedload capacity in geology) is then deposited out on the underwater alluvial fan in this lake.

Most of us have seen aerial pictures of mud and silt-filled stream water, usually muddy in color, spreading out into a clearer body of water. Or the same situation when we look down on two rivers from different drainages meeting, and the water clarity is significantly different. The silty “plume” is evident in one river versus the other.

http://www.fraserraft.com/images/generalinfo-1.jpg (broken link)

A number of different State, Provincial or Federal organizations have set up hydrologic measuring stations on drainages of interest. Some are automated and transmit their information via satellite or cell phone technology; others are visited and hand-recorded. Regardless, a lot of information is collected at these sites, such as flow rate, stream velocity, turbidity (i.e.: amount of silt that is carried in the stream flow, measured optically and reported to satellites, and by various other sophisticated means). Turbidity is also exactly measured by sampling the water and field- or in-lab measuring. It’s very accurate as to percentage of material present in the water as well as a “sort” by types and color of materials that are being transported by the stream at any point in time.

http://dsf.chesco.org/water/lib/wate...strm_gages.jpg

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncateg...satellites.jpg

Q1: Is this clearly understood and logical so far? Yes or No, or “Need More Info to Understand”.

Second Statement; More Setup: Torrent Creek is a hypothetical stream, however this information and the techniques used to quantify Torrent’s flow characteristics, are right out of hydrology textbooks and direct observation techniques in use over the past 70 years. Then US Geological Survey and the Geological Survey of Canada, as well as most state water management and environmental management agencies, do have massive collections of this type of data on thousands of streams. The accuracy of these techniques, and their validity for the purposes intended, has been proven and is accepted by all users. Starting about 45 to 55 years ago, many government agencies started collecting very detailed flow, sediment and depositional information to guide them in decisions about water rights, erosion control and forest hydrology in support of the management of natural resource development companies and of environmental impacts.

http://www.anthonares.net/lowell_can...rsheds_map.jpg

For our purposes here, it’s important to note that their hydrologic research goal was not to prove or disprove evolution, the Second Coming, or any other scientific or religious philosophies. They had no vested interest in ignoring any part of their observations, or in interpretations beyond the simple observed facts in front of them. They were simply forest rangers, hydrologists or logging company personnel.

My qualifications to understand and accurately present the technology in this example? Beyond my own field experience in such things, one of my university Science graduate school courses was in Stream Hydrology, another in Geotechnics and Engineering Geology, another in Debris Flow Event Analysis (big macro and torrential flows of water and mud in mountainous country) and yet another in Mine Water Management. From two noted Canadian Universities and the Kentucky School of Mining Engineering. I learned, and subsequently conducted, such daily, seasonal and annual surveys, and I then was assigned a staff of field people who conducted such measurements several times a day for very active streams on the eastern front of the northern Rocky Mountains. I conducted the standardized analyses of the resulting data. The purpose of this work was demonstrably secular. And as a professional engineer and scientist, I was considered to be unbiased.

Q2: Do you accept this hypothetical study and the supporting technical background as reasonable, accurate, appropriate and unbiased within its intent to show how the hydrology data was used? Yes or No, or “Need More Info to Understand”.

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by rifleman

I've learned over the past 6 months that when there's a debate about some typical hot topics, especially religious ones, there are those two general positions:

1: Sarcastic objectivism and empiricism overlaid with an arrogant over-dependance on so-called incontrovdertible scientific validity (me),

and/or:

2: Blathering, deflective illogic and ad-hominem attacks or accusations of scientific fraud in the face of facts and provable evidence (them).

One common theme I do see in my more objective moments, though, is the absolutely amazing lack of knowledge and understanding of what The Science ToolSet is, and how it's typically applied to a huge and vastly different set of questions. Consequently, there's the then attendant mis-understandings of what a researcher can then reasonably conclude.

If they understood how science works, what some of those definitions mean, and just how and why we feel confident with our conclusions, perhaps Christian non-scientists would at least realize that science, in general, is basically honest and quite reliable.

That's my objective. Not to rub anyone's noses in anything. Less'n they deserve it, of course.... I'm hoping they will have the decency and respect to agree when things are agreeable. Obvious blindered wailing will be immediately obvious to all readers I'm sure, so I'll let others set in and provide the dunce caps or hand wacks with the ruler.

With that in mind, I've decided to provide a several-part seminar format of an actual modern-day research study. It has several uses as a demo, plus, it's factually accurate, because it represents work I directed while on the job at a huge Northern British Columbia mine site. I was required to come up with accurate predictions; workers' lives depended on it. And again, I wasn't trying to prove or disprove any theistic topics. I was almost a practicing Xtian back then, having only just started to drift away from mythology.

To repeat, it was not done to in any way prove or disprove "the existance of God", but was rather a simple excercise in recording some hydrologic conditions in order to be able to predict runoff conditions later on. In order to prevent massive erosion events, and to ensure the safety and even the lives of the thousands of workers that were toiling in that "loon-sh#t" (as we called it) soil typical of the ancient northern Rockies. Put a bit of water on it and it all wanted to slither away, usually burying something or someone in the process.

So we applied pretty standard methods, and in return we achieved our goal. We were thus able to predict, quite accurately, the future. There was another benefit, but I'll leave that to the end, and ask the Christian audience if they might have the answer.

Anyone? Anyone?

Okay, so I'm curious, is this a flood thing or earth beginnings thing ??? I have'nt the time now, but have seen alot of recent interesting things about land formations with regard water.

[ZugZub]

Originally Posted by bluepacific

Okay, so I'm curious, is this a flood thing or earth beginnings thing ??? I have'nt the time now, but have seen alot of recent interesting things about land formations with regard water.

He said it had no anti-theistic or pro-theistic implications. He's merely trying to teach anti-science believers how science works, in order to show that we're not just pulling all this out of our arses and blowing a lot of hot air.

[Currency Pair Crocodile]

Originally Posted by rifleman

I've learned over the past 6 months that when there's a debate about some typical hot topics, especially religious ones, there are those two general positions:

1: Sarcastic objectivism and empiricism overlaid with an arrogant over-dependance on so-called incontrovdertible scientific validity (me),

and/or:

2: Blathering, deflective illogic and ad-hominem attacks or accusations of scientific fraud in the face of facts and provable evidence (them).

One common theme I do see in my more objective moments, though, is the absolutely amazing lack of knowledge and understanding of what The Science ToolSet is, and how it's typically applied to a huge and vastly different set of questions. Consequently, there's the then attendant mis-understandings of what a researcher can then reasonably conclude.

If they understood how science works, what some of those definitions mean, and just how and why we feel confident with our conclusions, perhaps Christian non-scientists would at least realize that science, in general, is basically honest and quite reliable.

That's my objective. Not to rub anyone's noses in anything. Less'n they deserve it, of course.... I'm hoping they will have the decency and respect to agree when things are agreeable. Obvious blindered wailing will be immediately obvious to all readers I'm sure, so I'll let others set in and provide the dunce caps or hand wacks with the ruler.

With that in mind, I've decided to provide a several-part seminar format of an actual modern-day research study. It has several uses as a demo, plus, it's factually accurate, because it represents work I directed while on the job at a huge Northern British Columbia mine site. I was required to come up with accurate predictions; workers' lives depended on it. And again, I wasn't trying to prove or disprove any theistic topics. I was almost a practicing Xtian back then, having only just started to drift away from mythology.

To repeat, it was not done to in any way prove or disprove "the existance of God", but was rather a simple excercise in recording some hydrologic conditions in order to be able to predict runoff conditions later on. In order to prevent massive erosion events, and to ensure the safety and even the lives of the thousands of workers that were toiling in that "loon-sh#t" (as we called it) soil typical of the ancient northern Rockies. Put a bit of water on it and it all wanted to slither away, usually burying something or someone in the process.

So we applied pretty standard methods, and in return we achieved our goal. We were thus able to predict, quite accurately, the future. There was another benefit, but I'll leave that to the end, and ask the Christian audience if they might have the answer.

Anyone? Anyone?

I'm not listening to you unless you prove you are a re-incarnation of say, Michael Faraday

What makes you assume devout religious people are anti-science?

Some of the most renowned "living" nuclear scientists of today ( I can name them, if needed) are extremely devout and religiously obsessive. Are they idiots?

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by Colossus_Antonis

I'm not listening to you unless you prove you are a re-incarnation of say, Michael Faraday

What makes you assume devout religious people are anti-science?

Some of the most renowned "living" nuclear scientists of today ( I can name them, if needed) are extremely devout and religiously obsessive. Are they idiots?

Nuclear science - bombs - depleted uranium - I have become death - maybe religion is a way of dealing with the results of their work?

OTOH we have nuclear energy and that is a good thing seeing we can power power stations and Oops nuclear subs and aircraft carriers and warships. Yup they need religion big time.

[bluepacific]

Originally Posted by ZugZub

He said it had no anti-theistic or pro-theistic implications. He's merely trying to teach anti-science believers how science works, in order to show that we're not just pulling all this out of our arses and blowing a lot of hot air.

Ooooooooookay, so you are saying this thread was for perceived science haters lake Nikk , Campbell34, etc ??? Or is your assumption anything religious hates what you consider to be science ??? If it's for fighting all over again with those two and bashing anything religious no matter who's religious beliefs, then have fun, I'll respectfully stay out of the fray.

[Currency Pair Crocodile]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

Nuclear science - bombs - depleted uranium - I have become death - maybe religion is a way of dealing with the results of their work?

OTOH we have nuclear energy and that is a good thing seeing we can power power stations and Oops nuclear subs and aircraft carriers and warships. Yup they need religion big time.

Seeker, I said nuclear scientist because in this age that is the quintessence of science, I consider it the pinnacle of human thinking and intelligence.

There are people who shine in the field of science and still passionately kneel and pray. They are not idiots.

I must be one of them. I have four years of electronics engineering under my belt, that was after several years of physics and math. I am a devout christian. Do I need a science class?

How does my religious belief disqualify my intellect?

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by Colossus_Antonis

Seeker, I said nuclear scientist because in this age that is the quintessence of science, I consider it the pinnacle of human thinking and intelligence.

But with it comes that problem with nuclear waste, probably something not really considered way back i the 50's.

There are people who shine in the field of science and still passionately kneel and pray. They are not idiots.

I must be one of them. I have four years of electronics engineering under my belt, that was after several years of physics and math. I am a devout christian. Do I need a science class?

How does my religious belief disqualify my intellect?

I was having a dig at you hence the and the answer is no.

I doubt you need a science class but there are many that do. I am sure that among the lurkers of these threads are many on both sides of the debate and as I have said in the past, science and faith can coexist.

It gets tiring when science is ruled out on the ToE with mere deflections and nonsensical references - most of which are outdated or have been replaced by newer things.

I find the field fascinating but that is because I have no preconceived notions of a YEC - not something I was ever taught at school but the ID side came up in church. The YEC based solely on reverse engineering begats from a questionable complete canon of scriptures of 6035 years is ridiculous in light of all the evidence out there.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by rifleman

2: Blathering, deflective illogic and ad-hominem attacks or accusations of scientific fraud in the face of facts and provable evidence (them).

Has it not occurred to you that perhaps the data is being misinterpreted?