Why don't Christians have problems with most scientific theories (after life, bible, quote)
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.
Further to your claim that science claims a fact that a fall of 47 stories is fatal, from your own link
“Above 10 stories, most of the time we never see the patients because they usually go to the morgue,” Dr. Barie said, though he added that the staff at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell had treated — and had written a medical journal article about — a patient who survived a 19-story fall, less than half the distance Mr. Moreno fell.
“This is right up there with those anecdotes of people falling out of airplanes and surviving, people whose parachutes don’t open and somehow they manage to survive,” Dr. Barie said in an interview after the press conference. “We’re talking about tiny, tiny percentages, well under 1 percent, of people who fall that distance and survive.”
It says right in the story that a very small percentage of people survive high falls. Even if it was 0.001% of the people that survived a fall that far it would not be a scientific fact that none survive. Again please read the entire story before you make your false claims about science, atheism, animals etc. Usually the stories you link to do not support your claims, you failed once again. It was an interesting story though and I did note that the article stated a few reasons that accounted for his survival. Very rare and indeed good news but not going against a scientific fact as you claimed.
Why is the theory of evolution the only scientific theory Christians seem to have a problem with? Some regard evolution as the foundation of a dangerous scientific materialism. I heard an interview of Senator Rick Santorum a while back and the interviewer asked him a very similar question. He had taken a shot at some science curriculum even though he had no training in science, specifically at evolution and not any of the other sciences, in his book that he was promoting at the time. Getting to the heart of the matter, he said,
Quote:
“Because it really matters, it’s where we come from. If we are just an accident, if we are a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, it doesn’t put a moral demand on us. It’s better if we are the intentional creation of a supreme being who does make moral demands. If evolution is right, then morality is just an illusion. Morality is not just don’t do sex, drugs and rock and roll, morality is what’s right in the world, how do you treat the poor, issues of war and peace, economic justice, fairness, personal integrity. Morality matters.”
So if you come to believe that evolution as a doctrine invalidates any sense of morality you’re going to oppose it irrespective of any scientific justification. It has no bearing on the matter at all. It is axiomatic that it is WRONG. Michael Behe has also commented that evolution and evolutionary materialism is a morally destructive doctrine. Now, if certain sects of Christians knew more about QM, I am sure they would have problems with that.
I often wonder why Christians don't have issues with other scientific theories besides evolution. Never hear them complain about germ theory, gravitational theory and other theories with solid evidence behind them. My thoughts are they only seem to have problems with those theories that seem to contradict the Bible.
Why atheists start threads of evolution in religion forums if it is a science?
Science is based on a premise of man's capability for reasoning and observation being the ultimate authority. Atheists have unshakable faith in science because that's really the only foundation you got.
Spoken from the presupposition that everything must have an authority backing. Science is not about soliciting authoritarian approval for dogma, but about the best current understanding of available evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
... when you declare something is scientific fact then you are even betraying very principles of science which teaches that science is always evolving and changing positions based on new evidence.
No, when something is considered proven in science it is always provisional and never immutable. When something reaches the status of theory (in the scientific sense of that word) it is considered highly likely to be true and highly unlikely to be disproven though still subject to refinement and expansion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You can tell me that evolution is 100% fact yet it is still possible that a future discovery could erase everything that was claimed to be fact.
Possible but very unlikely. What is far more likely is that future discoveries will cause minor aspects of the theory to be reconsidered, probably more as to scope than anything else. Einstein didn't render Newtonian physics "erased", just insufficient for certain problem domains. We still use Newtonian physics for everyday purposes. Quantum Electrodynamics did not "erase" relativity, either, and multidemensional, multiuniverse, string hypotheses that might success Quantum will not "erase" quantum, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Is it a fact that if you fall from 47 stories, then human body will die?
No, it is just highly probable that you will die. Nothing more was ever claimed, although the probability of survival is low enough that anyone jumping off the 47th floor can be assumed to have mere seconds to live. When someone falls in a certain way, hits certain kinds of objects in certain ways such that they are decelerated with less suddenness and concentrated force, on rare occasions they might survive and even substantially recover. But I rather suspect you will not jump off a 47 story building, even after praying and being convinced your god said to, because you understand it isn't likely you will survive even if it's possible and even if it isn't unprecedented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
We don't have to limit our knowledge to the physical.
No you don't have to limit yourself to the physical, because it's already limited to the physical whether or not you like that notion. You are a physical being with physical senses living in the natural world. You can imagine something beyond the natural but can't demonstrate it to others or present information coming from outside the natural order.
Indeed, once the supernatural asserts itself in the natural, it's no longer supernatural.
Once again you assume that all scientists are atheists and atheists are into science. Some atheists are clueless about science and some Christians are wonderful scientists. And you are also misrepresenting what a fact and a theory is in science. At least learn what a fact and a theory are in science. And yes if something comes up that disproves the theory of evolution the theory will be discarded or amended or a new one postulated to replace it. That is how science works. Those on this forum who support evolution would all agree with the statement that if evolution was disproved we would accept it. Your statements that it is a lie or that the Bible says differently are of course not acceptable disproof of ToE.
I think that if person is going to fall from a 47 story building the assumption is that he will die, I do not know it is a scientific fact. Do you know for a certainly that science claims as a fact that a fall of 47 stories is fatal? Is it also facts for a 46 or 48 story building?
You make a lot of claims about atheism and science, most of which only demonstrate your lack of understanding on both subjects. By the way facts is science are facts for atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoist and all other religions and lack of religion.
Translation - I have no real counter argument so I'll just play the "you're stupid and need education!" card again.
At least you didn't tell me to produce a peer reviewed study on falls from 47 stories.
The only reason most science doesn't contradict the Bible is that the Bible, despite supposedly being divinely inspired by an all-knowing deity, lacks a conceptual framework that would even address scientific issues, except by accident.
On the other hand, when the Bible expresses ancient Hebrew cosmology, depicting the sky as a dome with foundations in the earth, etc., why don't inerrantists complain that modern astronomy and astrophysics contradict this? I think it's because modern inerrantists project their current understanding of the cosmos onto these passing mentions in the Bible and it makes it easy for them to regard them as flowery metaphors. Since these mentions are incidental (and helped along by being mentioned in poetic wisdom passages rather than in any sort of story narrative), no dogma stands or falls on whether you take "firmament" or "foundations of the earth" literally, and a modern reader just isn't likely to take them literally anyway.
But the creation account is another matter. Fundamentalist identity is based on a literal reading of the creation and flood accounts and has historically accepted, at least in general terms, Usher's reckoning of the chronology of Biblical events. That is probably the key: does the science violate my group identity? Because if a fundamentalist's group identity is threatened, so is their confidence in their eternal destiny, the benefits of belonging to the group, etc. This makes it an existential threat which must be disposed of by any means possible.
Perhaps somebody can explain why those who view the Bible as 100% literal truth don't rail against the science of astronomy as they do against the science of evolution. I'd be curious to hear what people have to say about that.
Spoken from the presupposition that everything must have an authority backing. Science is not about soliciting authoritarian approval for dogma, but about the best current understanding of available evidence.
Not in the real world. In the real world, science is tainted by personal bias, financial motivation or political influences. For example, atheists NEED evolution to be true. That's why they accept without question any finding that supports it. And it's also why anyone who dares present an inkling of opposition gets laughed at and railroaded out of town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
No, when something is considered proven in science it is always provisional and never immutable. When something reaches the status of theory (in the scientific sense of that word) it is considered highly likely to be true and highly unlikely to be disproven though still subject to refinement and expansion.
Well then I think scientific fact is never truly achieved. You can tell me that it is a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow (and yes I know it doesn't technically rise so don't even go there) but who knows, one day, some event that only happens every billion years changes all that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Possible but very unlikely. What is far more likely is that future discoveries will cause minor aspects of the theory to be reconsidered, probably more as to scope than anything else. Einstein didn't render Newtonian physics "erased", just insufficient for certain problem domains. We still use Newtonian physics for everyday purposes. Quantum Electrodynamics did not "erase" relativity, either, and multidemensional, multiuniverse, string hypotheses that might success Quantum will not "erase" quantum, either.
Then you admit the possibility. That's all I need. Likewise, it's possible that God does not exist. Probable? Very unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
No, it is just highly probable that you will die. Nothing more was ever claimed, although the probability of survival is low enough that anyone jumping off the 47th floor can be assumed to have mere seconds to live. When someone falls in a certain way, hits certain kinds of objects in certain ways such that they are decelerated with less suddenness and concentrated force, on rare occasions they might survive and even substantially recover. But I rather suspect you will not jump off a 47 story building, even after praying and being convinced your god said to, because you understand it isn't likely you will survive even if it's possible and even if it isn't unprecedented.
Well that would be called a leap of faith. But as always, you can conjuer up some explanation without a single shred of evidence to quickly sweep a miracle under the rug. I'll go with the doctor's word on this one. He said it was a miracle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
No you don't have to limit yourself to the physical, because it's already limited to the physical whether or not you like that notion. You are a physical being with physical senses living in the natural world. You can imagine something beyond the natural but can't demonstrate it to others or present information coming from outside the natural order.
Indeed, once the supernatural asserts itself in the natural, it's no longer supernatural.
We are both physical and spiritual beings. It is not something I just imagine. There is evidence out there if one is willing to seek it. People like you are not.
Translation - I have no real counter argument so I'll just play the "you're stupid and need education!" card again.
At least you didn't tell me to produce a peer reviewed study on falls from 47 stories.
I never said you were stupid. Besides needing to educate one self on a subject is not a sign of stupidity otherwise we should just close down all the universities especially grad studies and even your Bible studies. I continue to learn new things by studying and reading and observing and if one was to tell me that I was wrong on a subject I would look into that subject to educate myself more on it. There is nothing wrong with learning new stuff. I personally know too little about the big bang, biogenesis quantum mechanics and many other subjects that if I was to post stuff on it there are many on this forum who would advise me to learn about the subject and I would not take offense. That you think anyone telling you that you do not know what you are talking about in any subject is being offensive to you is sad. Smart people can learn and if I thought you were a stupid person I would never had referred any books or articles to you.
If you continue to claim that it is a scientific fact that a person cannot survive such a fall then peer review would be in order because it is you that is claiming it as a scientific fact, not scientists.
That you wish to dismiss whatever I said with a mocking statement misrepresenting both my intension and my words so be it. I try very hard to be kind and thoughtful towards you and you just want to believe that I am a mean spirited person insulting you in every way imaginable. It does get a bit boring.
Facts: In science, these are the observations. As in, a person falls to the concrete from the 40th floor will go splat on the pavement.
Theories: The working models that explain the observations. In this case, the theories explain why the person does not pass through the concrete, after all, the concrete and our bodies are mostly made up of empty space. Hint: there are two theories at work in explaining this.
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.
