Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK...my response to that would be to point out the huge assumptions that "scientists" make every day regarding evolution, abiogenesis, and the origins of the universe. They have no way to falsify them...but they claim them as fact.
Let's see.
1. evolution would be falsifiable if a chicken sprang from thin air upon an incantation in the name of Jesus.
2. abiogenesis would be falsifiable if there simply wasn't enough matter/weight to account for a living being (furthermore, a certain type of abiogenesis is technically what chemotrophs and autotrophs do when they eat, a being that lives without components of molecules would falsify abiogenesis as the theory for the origin of all life. )
3. origins of the universe would be falsifiable if the movement of galaxies suddenly shifted and seemed to be coming from some other point, in which case, the big bang doesn't have to be the actual origin but could have been an earlier one of those shifts.
It would mean that they were incorrect about when a species went extinct. Science is about learning not protecting dogma. If it was the new findings would not have been published. The rocks are dated by means other than fossils and all this means is 9ne species survived longer than thought. Of course for those with little understanding of science the last half of your article might make sense.
Convenient out. I agree though...it's not about protecting dogma. If our understanding conflicts with truth, we are wrong. I've never suggested otherwise.
The only question is what presuppositions are you going into it with?
Badlander, I'm talking about the disproportionate amount that think that if you make any work that proves God, you need to lose your credentials as a scientist.
You didn't read. I left Hawking alone, his theology doesn't bother me, because he writes from his own experiences. It is one thing to arrive on atheism on your own. I don't like ppl who gush over Hawking, but I have more of a beef with ppl who turn atheism into an orthodoxy where ppl who can still see God in the vastness of the universe are obviously damaged somehow (this would be Ferris, and those like him, who aren't true scientists).
Ferris on the other hand, is a science writer, not a real scientist. From what I can see, he makes his money being a leech on real scientists. As for producing something of value, I invented my own religion. I'm less organized than him in terms of writing, but seeing as he pretty much has nothing authentic to say, I'd say my 108 pages trumps his 300+ that he got not by actually living but copying people he doesn't understand and staring at a telescope.
The point is that Ferris obviously hired someone to write his book jacket. I wrote my own book, did my own illustrations, and the jacket? It was about the topic, not how I'm a genius.
Let's talk about something. Growing up, my grasp of science and math was okay. Until my high school teacher taught me to get ulcers from it. I can still do math, but I loathe math problems on a page. But over the years I learned something interesting. While doing math problems freaks me out, I can do applied math well. That is, while a math problem is a phobia, I use math when helping with stage construction for a play or doing simple carpentry, I use it to solve various problems, and I use it for game programming. The way to test whether my skills work is to apply them. So this Ferris guy, has his theory helped him build a rocket? Solve any of the world's problems? Has he done anything with it? Or is it simply an untested theory that he uses sophistry to persuade people that he's proved? There is no good reason why a person can't believe in God and the Big Bang (watch the video, they're essentially the same deal), and he spends much of his time arguing about how God is silent. Who is he really trying to convince?
Stephen Hawking on the other hand, doesn't need to convince anyone. He is not teaching someone else's theory, he has his own. Which is why I left him alone. Atheist or not, better to be a scientist than a "science writer" who can't construct his own ideas, without using other people's work and fawning over them. A writer must trust themselves.
It was kinda a diatribe, huh? But anyway, the theory of a Creator can be revised to make it fit with scientific theory. And yeah, a lot of the other stuff is right. The personal god isn't verifiable, although I've managed to personally verify it (as in, I can prove it to myself but not to you because it's all existential philosophy). Right about name-dropping. Creation is a substantiated position, if (and only if) one acceppts as I do, that these two theories are actually variations on the same concept. If we are toaccept that when God created "light" what we are describing is actually the long chain of events that split a singularity into all matter and energy, then science has already proven that. The only non-given in that case is the presence or absence of a creator, which is a separate issue. As in, god made Light (the Big Bang) or the Big Bang happened, but it's time to sto thinking of this as a disproof to God, because it simply isn't.
Nothing 'proves God'.
But, I would agree with you, there is no good reason why a person can't believe in God and the Big Bang. Nothing at all. You can see god anywhere you like... in the Big Bang, in a mountain, in a star, in a flower, in a new born baby.
I don't think there are many atheists who would have an issue with people believing in a pantheist, 'god is everything / god is nature', sort of god.
But then the view that god that made the big bang happen (created the universe), starts to get a little more irrational. What was god doing, hanging around before creation? Twiddling his thumbs? It's nonetheless a harmless view. I for one, have no problem with people believing in this sort of god.
After that, you start to get into more irrational interventionist gods - gods that make everything else 'happen'. The problem here is that almost everything we once thought 'happened' because of god, we now have a natural explanation for - God is no longer a part of the explanation...hence atheism.
You have to believe that a god who can create an entire universe can also make plenty of other things 'happen'.
Then you start getting into sticky issues about morality. Gods that can make things happen - you have to start making excuses for them when they ignore suffering going on in the world, and so on. And this is where it starts to get very irrational.
And who wants an irrational scientist?
But religion is where the real incompatibility comes in - when people believe that their ancient 2000 year old text is any explanation at all for how the universe came about. If you want to use the word 'idiocy', start here.
Evolution is most definitely falsifiable. Can't you think of a potential observation that would falsify evolution? I can. Can you think of an observation that would falsify, for instance ID? I can't.
That's because one is science and one is a fairy tale. I can't think of an observation that would "falsify" the story of Little Red Riding Hood, either, since it never actually happened and is a work of fiction.
Convenient out. I agree though...it's not about protecting dogma. If our understanding conflicts with truth, we are wrong. I've never suggested otherwise.
The only question is what presuppositions are you going into it with?
BS.
You brought up a point that can be logically explained however you thought it could be used to discredit evolution. You were wrong. You so often misrepresent what evolution means that I do question any search for truth on your part. Have you read any of the books that actually explain evolution written by someone who works in the field of evolution?
My presupposition is that we look at the evidence and find the best explanation for the evidence. When new evidence is presented we may need to change what is the best explanation that would include both the new and the previous evidence. That is how evolution, plate tectonics, uniformitarianism and relatively all came about. The literal interpretation of the Bible came about as a reaction against science. Religious people 200 years ago were more accepting of new ideas and of science than aRe the fundamentalists of all the major religions are today. Lots 9f new discoveries have changed how we see how evolution works since the days of Darwin and Wallace however none of it has shown that the basis of natural selection is wrong. If something does than a new theory will be made to again be the best explanation for the evidence, 7ntil that day comes, if it ever does, I will go with evolution, pkate tectonics, principles of geology, Mackay 's theory for the origin of pingoes and not with your Bible.
Badlander, I'm talking about the disproportionate amount that think that if you make any work that proves God, you need to lose your credentials as a scientist.
Except based on what I've read, you haven't really proved God. You've simply turned a scientific explanation into a quasi-religious one.
The reason why some people believe that believing in God taints one's reputation as a scientist is because a belief in God is almost always an absolute. In addition, the presupposition that God exists means that God MUST be a part of the process no matter what the evidence says. Ergo, they approach the problem with the answer already constructed -- and because a belief in God is an absolute, there is virtually NO possibility that God isn't needed for the scientific theory to work. Nope. God exists. Period. Meaning God must be in there somewhere no matter what, even if I have to redefine half the universe to make God fit.
Real science involves following the data no matter where it leads. If the data eventually proves beyond doubt that a God is needed for the universe to "bang" into existence, that's what science will ultimately reveal.
Yet to someone who devoutly believes God is real, science MUST reveal God's presence no matter what. If it doesn't, then science is wrong.
That's why evolution and the Big Bang are the only two scientific theories that an embarrassingly numerous amount of Americans completely reject. Those are the two theories that directly contradict a literal reading of the Bible. Therefore, no matter what the evidence says, neither of those theories can be correct!
Which takes us back to the beginning -- the reason why there are those who think a belief in God taints the scientific method.
Except based on what I've read, you haven't really proved God. You've simply turned a scientific explanation into a quasi-religious one.
The reason why some people believe that believing in God taints one's reputation as a scientist is because a belief in God is almost always an absolute. In addition, the presupposition that God exists means that God MUST be a part of the process no matter what the evidence says. Ergo, they approach the problem with the answer already constructed -- and because a belief in God is an absolute, there is virtually NO possibility that God isn't needed for the scientific theory to work. Nope. God exists. Period. Meaning God must be in there somewhere no matter what, even if I have to redefine half the universe to make God fit.
Real science involves following the data no matter where it leads. If the data eventually proves beyond doubt that a God is needed for the universe to "bang" into existence, that's what science will ultimately reveal.
Yet to someone who devoutly believes God is real, science MUST reveal God's presence no matter what. If it doesn't, then science is wrong.
That's why evolution and the Big Bang are the only two scientific theories that an embarrassingly numerous amount of Americans completely reject. Those are the two theories that directly contradict a literal reading of the Bible. Therefore, no matter what the evidence says, neither of those theories can be correct!
Which takes us back to the beginning -- the reason why there are those who think a belief in God taints the scientific method.
A belief in God of the type you describe might taint scientific inquiry, Shirina, but it needn't. ANY predetermined expectations about God are potential biases that could taint the interpretation of findings. But a scientist who accepts whatever science discovers as attributes of God without demanding that they fit into any preconceived set of beliefs and expectations about God is in no danger of tainting science. Science, then, simply adds to our understanding of God, period.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 09-18-2015 at 12:20 PM..
Justifying a book, by what is written in that book is stupid.. Justifying something within a book, based on facts outside of the book is science.
If they found a book in Bethlehem tomorrow that said "everything written in the bible is false, this book is the true word of the lord" would you suddenly stop reading and following the bible?
But hey whats the point.. you can't logically reason with a religious person, if you could, there wouldn't be religious people.
Who had the capability to produce such a book as the bible back then? Who had the knowledge, the power, the ability, the money, who knew how to read and write? THE RICH....
Everything in the bible suggests it was a tool to convince/prevent the poor from aspiring to be rich themselves, hence limiting the competition the rich would have.
Don't steal, don't covet, the meek shale inherit the earth, Don't plant two different crops next to each other, don't touch the skin of dead pigs, don't work on Sunday, Greed is bad!
It all suggests you should just be happy with what you have, and if you even think about wanting more you'll go to hell.
Justifying a book, by what is written in that book is stupid.. Justifying something within a book, based on facts outside of the book is science.
Have YOU justified everything in your Biology textbook or do you take it on faith that others did? Just saying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
